Comment Re:just great. (Score 1) 142
"Natural elements", "Possible elements", WTF? And how much are you willing to be on, for example, element 114 never having been created in a supernova?
"Natural elements", "Possible elements", WTF? And how much are you willing to be on, for example, element 114 never having been created in a supernova?
They don't. All adults have the right to vote, regardless of criminal status (including people in prison at the time of the vote).
Congratulations, you reclassified most objects in the solar system as planets. For example, consider any comet. What's it in orbit around? How does that differ from Pluto, since you're only considering which other object it's in orbit around?
Functional purity makes I/O a major mess. Monads are complex, unintuitive and unwieldy. I think I spent over one month only trying to warp my mind around that. It does not help that Haskellers keep repeating that "monads are really simple", there is a reason why they are the most asked-about topic in newsgroups.
I'm suspecting that's because they really are quite simple. You can think of monads in general as a way to formally define types of computation that may have a context in which they operate. There're error monads like Maybe, where the computation may fail at a step, aborting the rest of the computation. State monads like State, where the computation has access to implicit state. Non-determinism in List, which computes all possible results. And IO, which is a bit like a state monad where your state is the whole of the rest of the world.
Try reading Real World Haskell? The text is available online.
The worst thing is the Haskell community's coding standards. Single-letter variables are common, and I actually read some delirious rant about this being necessary "because it's so abstract you cannot name it". If it's so abstract you cannot name it, you abstracted too much, or you don't understand what you are doing. There seems to be a proliferation of operators, since Haskell foolishly allows to define new ones, even completely useless ones like $. Coding function with undocumented one-liners seems to be considered a virtue.
OK. Let's take the simple example of map:
-- | Gives the list obtained by applying the given function to each element of the given list.
map
map f (e:es) = f e : map f es
map _ [] = []
What longer variable names would you use there and would those really make it more understandable?
Presence of one-letter variable names generally indicates that the function doesn't care about the internal details of the value in that variable. That could be due to either the function being polymoprhic (where it can't access the internals) or operating on simple types like numbers (where there are no internal details to care about).
$ is occasionally handy when creating a partial application. For example:
fs
v
map ($ v) fs
That's in addition to cutting out extra parens when you're applying multiple functions:
f1 (f2 (f3 (f4 v)))
vs.
f1 $ f2 $ f3 $ f4 v
One of the places where custom operators are very usefull is with combinator libraries. Making the most commonly used low-level combinators operators helps keep the code using the combinators reasonably short and thus more readable than if they were bloodyLongNamesFullySpelledOut.
Because antibiotics are given constantly, regardless of whether the animal is sick or not. Which is an excellent way of making the antibiotic in question useless due to immunization of the bacteria.
The situations are largely different in Iran currently vs America during the independence. And there is also the very important matter of US having interfered with Iran before, with negative consequences for the people in general. So interfering in favor of the opposition would pretty much kill their support from the general public - in Iran, US-backing means US-puppet and they have no reason to believe it would be different this time. Hell, probably the best way for US to support the opposition would be to declare support for the government, though how you'd do that and still be believable I have no idea.
Different trajectories and velocities relative to Earth.
The duration has been retroactively extended whenever any works are about to fall out of scope. So it effectively never ends. Moreover, even if the duration were not to be extended anymore, from the point of an actual human it never ends, since the duration is longer than a human lifetime already.
The problem with that attitude is that by the time you can start the process of removing a bad law, it's already done damage. I'd prefer the approach where the stupidity isn't allowed to happen in the first place - no-one gets hurt and less resources are spent.
Also, if a law has no effect, then IMO it should be gotten rid of. It will still cause unnecessary overhead by having to be checked for effect in potentially related cases.
In quite the same sense, "You could find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" is also true. Sure, in reality there might be conditions like requiring different laws of physics than reality has, but that doesn't change the basic truth, now does it?
I'm currently borrowing a copy of company of heroes off my brother just by breaking the terms of the service, which I will get his account banned for
Fixed that for you. Still not seeing any problems?
So I've got a $BIGNUM of screws to screw in and I could use either a screwdriver or a power tool, which I don't know how to use yet.
Clearly the screwdriver is the superior option, because I have better things to do than wasting my time learning tools.
Lagrange point. Location where the gravitic pulls of some objects cancel each other out. In this case, it's Earth and Moon.
Microsoft's fine had penalties added in for not paying on time, so it's not exactly a fair comparison point. They could have gotten off rather lighter if they'd skipped dicking about.
And the size of the fine is based on yearly revenue, so if Intel's fine is bigger, it just means Intel is bigger.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?