A "real" language has been classically defined to mean "a language which can compile itself."
Complete and total bullshit. If you deny that Python and Perl "compile" themselves, than neither do Lisp or Smalltalk, two of the fundamental pillars of modern programming language pedigree. And I don't think anyone familiar with those languages would claim they aren't "real".
Honestly, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, do you?
Add to that the fact that any language which can output byte streams to a file, can read a text file and is turing complete (although that last part is not even 100% necessary) can take any source file (whatever the language) out there and output its executable binary file. It then follows that Javascript with a STDIO library _IS_ "a language which can compile itself", just that there are no compiler easily available.
The OP just wanted to throw up the definition he heard in a book... He should go and read some stuff about algorithmic before talking about classes of languages.
[generic statement] [insightful karma whoring] [shameless plug]
Welcome to Slashdot. Here's your card.
The key here is the phrase 'on the same hardware'. As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately. And it's not a Windows thing, it's a MacOS thing and a Linux thing.
Not necessarily. MacOS X, 10.2 was faster than 10.1, and 10.3 faster than 10.2, on the same hardware. It wasn't until 10.4 that you actually started seeing a performance hit on G3 and slower G4 computers.
In any event, I'm not sure that I'd call the jump from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 'major iterations'.
In any event, I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. The full list of features in each iteration was astounding. The difference between 10.1 and 10.2 was of the order of those between Win 2k and Win XP. The fact that they update minor version numbers doesn't change the fact that they add enough to call it a major iteration.
Don't believe me? Check out for yourself on wikipedia: 10.1 10.2 and 10.3. Thank you, come again.
What exactly does your first sentence have to do with the rest of your post?
*sigh* My parent suggested that we sue people who distribute copyrighted materials as opposed to those recording it. In my first paragraph, I stated that this was unenforceable and brought as proof that the RIAA tried exactly that and couldn't.
Then, making an analogy with those who trigger bombs and those who make them, as similar to those who distribute the cam releases and those who make them. In both cases, as long as we can't enforce the first one, I'm against permitting the second one.
So, what part of my post did you think made the less sense? I'm not sure I understand your inquiry, but I'm certain you didn't understand my post.
Like, for example, the ability to upload the data for others to download and circumvent copyright laws, and therefore is significantly different than a brain.
So arrest him for that. If the video is only ever used for personal private use, who was harmed by the filming?
So you encourage RIAA tactics to sue anyone who ever had Kazaa/eDonkey/$p2psoftware installed on their computers? If they have proven anything, it is that what you are suggesting is NOT enforceable in any ways... so yeah, until you can prove the guy will only use the recording for himself without redistributing it, I should consider it illegal as well.
Sorry pal, but reality is not as simple as "arrest only those who detonates bombs in malls, not those who build them as long as they don't use them" kind of thinking...
If you value your time, don't even bother to RTFA
What an odd thing to post to Slashdot
Some people are just NOT connected to reality anymore...
May 2009 seems to me a perfect 'real and legitimate' date - opposed to February 30, 2009.
Hush! Don't tell my fiancee.
How is meme formed?
How meme get poplar?
Why are we here?
Where do we go?
Ahah! In time, Timmy, you shall answer those questions on your own.
Classful adressing died at least ten years ago. Please don't bring it back. 192.168.0.0/16 is a perfectly valid network, and 192.168.4.255 is a perfectly valid IP address. Windows XP won't work with it, but that is just another reason why Windows should not be allowed to connect to IP networks.
I didn't say otherwise. In fact, I support your point. Based on the sole address 192.168.4.255, we can only say it's a valid IP address without further knowledge of its netmask. I never said to bring back classes, just that we can use them to define a first valid netmask during validation.
And I don't know about XP. Will it really choke with a valid netmask and a
I do as well. And *both* of us can't be nobody.
you both ain't somebody either.
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum
