whoosh
You *can* write such code, but how long will it take you to build up equivalent APIs in a low-level language that these higher-level languages give you out of the box, taking into account the time needed to eliminate bugs? Here's a hint: it took those multiple companies' worth of advanced programmers over a decade to get to that level.
It's almost as if you exhibit a polar extreme case of Not Invented Here syndrome. Just because you *can* do something does not make it a good or practical solution to real-world problems.
don't forget the chance of identical twins...
What if I said "I have two children, one of whom is a boy that likes the number 1835736583. What's the probability that my other child is a boy?"
Ahaha brilliant!!
don't you mean in 4 years from now? 6*5 != 27...
It's not just F12. On some systems it is Delete, Esc, or Ctl-Shift-S, and any number of other potential combinations of modifier and F-keys.
So your approach is actually the perfect one for hacking into an unfamiliar system
Instead of invalidating patents, why not just simply say all standards must not be patent encumbered?
Mod parent up. This would be a really nice, sensible state of things that I could imagine being realistically being applied to many (but probably not all) standards bodies.
But even more pertinent is the question, why is the W3C allowed to put H.264 in the HTML5 spec? The whole premise of the web is that its specifications are open (i.e. royalty free), and that is one of the reasons it has become so popular. Have we learned nothing from GIF? Media formats that are specified as being embedded within HTML should be treated as if they are part of the HTML specification--a specification which is supposed to be royalty-free! Allowing H.264 in there is the epitome of saying one thing while doing another--pure hipocrasy!
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
