Comment Re:Powerpoint? (Score 2) 181
Beamer FTW!
The daily mail has a long record for making up statistics and deliberately misunderstanding facts, so as to push an an agenda which includes anti-animal-welfare.
Also, you seem to have upped the statistics from 84% in one shelter (according to the mail) to 90% for all animals (according to you). Silly you.
521 N (as copy-pasted from your post into the search bar) returns two alternatives - in Nassau and in Cattaraugus, where there are North and South 1st streets.
Other counterexamples:
All the starbucks in my town are listed in OSM.
Looking for bus routes in Kent, England
Google Maps: Search, get the occasionall bus depot. Public transport layer, get not a thing.
OpenStreetMap: Search, get nothing. Transport layer: get detailed visualisation of bus route and train routes.
OSM also has an excellent layer for cycle routes. Google thinks it has one, but it's woefully incomplete and inaccurate.
Basically, I find OSMs local info to be more complete, but google has a better search parser and, of course, street view.
They are both utterly useable.
From the article, I think the idea is to enable hardware-like features to programmers.
It's not clear (and other posts are clearly as confused about this) whether reactive programming is meant to be a language-level paradigm (which IMHO would be interesting and useful) or some kind of 'philosophy' like agile.
If the latter, then I guess it would be about creating frameworks, which would get seriously messy, or some kind of meta-programming.
For C++, I think Qt-style signals and slots is the best you're likely to get, since you don't need to care how the event loop and triggers work, you just 'emit' in the right places and 'connect' up whatever object you'd like to change accordingly.
Using someone else's framework, I have to fix my bugs, and someone else's bugs too.
The motto of NIH!
Yes, you get buggy frameworks which are to be avoided. There are also many quality frameworks and toolkits available.
If it is commecially supported, then it is someone else's task to fix any bugs you point out.
If you built the thing from the ground up, then it's all on you (and you probably took years just getting there.)
If it is open source, then realise that you are benefitting from everyone else's contributions and thus stop whining and go ahead and fix someone else's bug.
Rome was not built by one man.
The point of new paradigms in programming languages is to make the complexity of the expression match the complexity of the idea being expressed, not the complexity of the (platform specific) implementation.
Crappy illustration:
C++ - Event-trigger
vector triggers;
void add_trigger(Trigger * t);
void reactive_variable::modify_value(int new_value)
{
this.value = new_value;
for (i = triggers.begin(); i != triggers.end(); i++){
i.react(new_value);
}
}
int main()
{
reactive_variable a;
Trigger *b = new Trigger(COPY_VAR);
a.add_trigger(b);
Trigger *c = new Trigger(ADD_VAR, 1);
a.add_trigger(c);
a.modify_value(2);
enter_event_loop();
return 0;
}
Incomplete, inelegant and probably buggy, but you get the picture.
Verilog - Reactive
assign b = a;
assign c = a+1;
inital a = 2;
always @(posedge clk)
a = count(input);
Easy to understand whats going on and spot errors. 'b' will always equal 'a' and 'c' will always be one more.
This is (should be?) big for marketability.
Or am I missing something?
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
