Comment Re:Headline Is Wrong (Score 1) 667
Singular they and their goes back hundreds of years, even though there have been periods where it was not the recommended or common generic pronoun.
Singular they and their goes back hundreds of years, even though there have been periods where it was not the recommended or common generic pronoun.
Check the Ubuntu kernel updates again.
There were two kernel updates for 14.04 in a row recently so I checked things out. The only difference in the second update was that some network-related patch was removed since it was causing problems. There is a chance that your problem was fixed.
Oh. That option is missing. The original is of course designed for Samsung Note owners, not Apple iPad owners.
I only skimmed the summary.
And it is good so, because it has nothing to do with "e-readers". Every single of the linked articles deals with the normal tablets, PCs and smartphones - e-readers are not even mentioned.
As somebody who switched to the Kindle several years ago, I had hard time believing the headline. As it turned out, the headline is full of bullshit and is not related to the content of the article.
Same is true in the US.
Take a look at Kennesaw, GA mandating guns, and Morton Grove, IL banning guns. Kennesaw sees violent crimes and crime in general go down, Morton Grove sees an uptick. Preventing Citizens from owning guns when criminals own guns is the problem.
Blocks that are normally indented now have to be closed explicitly with an end keyword.
I see what they did there.
Highly un-Python-ic: a new keyword to close the if/for/etc statements.
But it is a confirmation of my own conclusion that with the vanilla Python syntax that is impossible to accomplish.
Python support for me wasn't as important. I simply wanted to see and compare use of different languages in such context. And see whether a generic, language-neutral preprocessor makes any sense. (Here it is, btw.)
(Source: personal experience. I work on a Python IDE that has to deal with lots of that kind of stuff for e.g. implementation of refactoring. Once we had our whitespace-preserving AST, the rest was and remains easy.)
You have different use case, which is 100% controlled code. IOW, you can rely on the original indentation to create the AST.
My use case is:
{user-start-code}
{generated-code}
{user-finish-code}
where "user-*-code" is an arbitrary user supplied string.
If the user start/finish code is just a function call, then it is all fine.
But if the user code is "if something:{CR}{TAB}aaaa", then the user intent simply can't be made clear from the Python's syntax: (A) is it "if (something) { aaaa }" or (B) it is "if (something) { aaaa" (and the closing "bracket" is in the finish code).
I've spent few hours tinkering, but there is simply no way to tell A from B definitively in the Python's syntax.
P.S. It is a sort of preprocessor, which allows to mix plain text with an arbitrary language. In generated output, the plain text is simply replaced with the print statements.
Oh this is just a load of.
On C/C++/Java code you can always run an formatter, and reformat it to your reading pleasure.
Ever wondered why there is no such tools for Python?
And I have seen enough of the crappy Python code too. It looks different from the C-like languages, but the shitty OOP is a shitty OOP in any OO language.
Different syntax is not a solution to any problem.
Wow.
Removing the ability to screw things up is NOT a bad thing
Can you please elaborate how use of whitespaces for defining control flow is "removing the ability to screw things up"?
If nothing else, use of the invisible characters for something as important as control flow is actively helping "the ability to screw things up".
But does that mean I'm going to poo-poo those languages or try to pretend they're inferior?
The problem is, Python is inferior. Because it provides less tools to its developers.
It's not like C lets you change which brackets do what, does it?
But C does have at least some brackets.
It does have clear visual clues and delimiters in its syntax.
Haha, here you all complain that Java is too fluffy, but if a language reduces the fluff it is also not good?
Oh this hipster coders.
Syntax is not fluff.
Wrappers for wrapper for adapters for wrappers - commonly found in the huge, so called "enterprise" software, is fluff.
In the case of Python, instead of intro/outro curled brackets or begin/end statements AND REDUNDANTLY indenting, using only one of the two was chosen. Why do it twice.
Language is a tool.
It should give me, the developer, the choice - not take it away from me.
As I have recently found out, that also affects the code generation.
It is hard to generate Python code, without actually analyzing what's precisely is being generated. If source is 100% generated - it is doable, relatively easy. But generally generated code also contains pieces of user code, which might/might not require its own indentation and also reindentation to make it proper part of the generated code.
If Python at least allowed optional block statement - curly brackets or begin/end or whatever. But nope. It is appears to be sort of a religious issue for the language creator and some of his followers.
I personally do not like Python for that reason. I prefer to have a visual marker that block is closed. You know, like a dot at the end of the sentence.
Honestly, to this day, as books concerned, I do not know the difference between "fiction" and "non-fiction".
On more than one occasion I was told that the "fiction" is a genre of its own, not related to the sci-fi and the fantasy, which I read the most.
P.S. Since it is a
... it is unclear...
But that would have made a pretty poor headline or summary.
BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.
