|
No, VB was a very good product for its time.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree and it always 'just worked'...now PHP gets heaps of scorn for not being 'pure' or whatever and it works great too.
...that was what I was getting at...
|
|
|
|
|
And they use a ceramic alloy with the gold so they can claim a higher carat : [^].
"The watch casing will be made of 18 karat gold. The interesting twist is an Apple patent that surfaced just recently suggesting that a novel low density ceramic material is used as an alloy component. This will, in a way, allow Apple to use less gold compared to conventional alloys because the karat is weight-based and not volume based as a unit. At any rate, about half an ounce of gold will be used in each watch, in addition to the gold and other technology metals contained in its electronic parts, and the screen.
The Apple Watch, therefore, contains about $ 600 worth of gold. If you had any doubts: given its price tag and high production volume this makes the Apple Watch a rather poor investment."
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
|
|
|
|
|
Most Linux kernel code isn’t developed by who you might think. Here’s a closer look at why this matters. "Whenever I feel afraid, I hold my head erect, and whistle a happy tune"
|
|
|
|
|
Such a fuss for nothing...
It is known for over 10 years that most Linux code written by people paid by companies - the reason, that those companies are selling products around Linux and has in there best interest make Linux good and stable...
However, when code committed into the code-base the company can claim nothing so there is no problem with the open-source status of Linux...
The only problem of Linux today is Torvalds...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: the reason, that those companies are selling products around Linux and has in there best interest make Linux good and stable
I believe that it's more to do with the break in the chain of responsibility.
They get to write/update/amend the codebase to be any way they want it to be (try doing that with Apple!), but are not even slightly responsible if it screws up people's machines or opens huge security gaps.
Since that means that they're screwing protection rackets insurance companies out of money: I approve.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I didn't got you...
Companies like RedHat (Fedora) and Canonical (Ubuntu) ARE have an interest to make Linux better! They do care about security and other problems and when developing a feature that serves their goal it does not came to screw you - in most cases you benefit of it...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying that they're doing bad work, or that the developers' hearts aren't in it.
It just means that they don't have to worry about being sued by people if bugs cause problems.
That's a huge weight off their shoulders, a huge chunk off their insurance, and a huge reduction in risk, so they've got a lot of incentive to go open source.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Now I see your point...But that's true for any free software (and for most paid too!!!)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
The downside of using open source is viral licenses like GPL.
Many companies have proprietary technology that they are uninterested in sharing with the entire world. Keeping this so while using open source gives employment to legions of lawyers.
I don't know which is preferable - paying the insurance companies or paying the lawyers.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I spent a very unpleasant day going through all the frameworks and libraries used by the developers at one place (it was a massive list!)
You have to find and read each item's license, to make sure that they haven't extended it with something that will bite you in the @rse, later -- and then you have to make sure that the framework/library you're using doesn't import frameworks/libraries from some other project with its own license, which, of course you also have to find and read, and so on.
We ended up having to "find alternatives" for two frameworks (one of which was for a clock, of all things).
It's reason 23 why I believe that developers should spend more time writing code, rather than configuring square pegs to fit in round holes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly what I mean!
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I note they criticise inclusion of code from Huawei, for links to the Chinese government. Obviously, no US company would consider similar actions, oh, wait...
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised there isn't a version of 'Microsoft Linux'...or is there?
|
|
|
|
|
In a bid to make the Web a safer place, Mozilla's security team proposes making encrypted connections necessary for using new Web technologies. Google's Chrome team has a similar idea. This site looks best with 256-bit encryption
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, because keeping your selfies and lolcat pictures safe is really important.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to know how well a technology is doing, just look at who's lining up to learn it. In the case of Reactive programming, online education trends point to a mainstreaming of the erstwhile outlier. And by 'mainstream', they mean, 'used in a small number of special scenarios'
|
|
|
|
|
My code has never been functional; I don't see why I should start now.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Yah, you spend too much time writing comments... 
#SupportHeForShe If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
#SupportHeForShe If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Functional programming is very well suited to searching algorithms especially when traversing trees and graphs. This can only realistically be implemented in .NET using LINQ which of course uses lambda expressions i.e. functional programming.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: Functional programming is very well suited to searching algorithms especially when traversing trees and graphs. This can only realistically be implemented in .NETC#/VB.net using LINQ which of course uses lambda expressions i.e. functional programming.
FTFY You can do native functional programming with F# instead of via a library grafted onto a primarily OOP language.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. F# is the natural choice for a functional language implementation. However, I was making the point that even in a procedural / OOP language such as C# you can still use functional directives. Hence making the point that even if you use C# you can still benefit from learning a functional language.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
As mainstream as the Linux Desktop! (#OUCH)
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
