With all due respect, you are pretty much talking 100% bullshit - mono is way more advanced than you suggest it is, and its a no-brainer that of course it won't run native code, but as I have yet to come across a library which is actually mixed mode that doesn't seem to be an issue.
But it isn't restricted at all, as I've used the same
Add to that the fact that Microsoft is leaning more and more toward Portable Class Libraries delivered via nuget rather than monolithic libraries delivered centrally, and PCLs are targeted toward a base standard which runs on all
What is more likely is that the person was referring to projects that are stuck on specific versions in maintenance hell, which can happen with any language - Ive been stuck with VB.Net 2.0 WebForms projects, while at the same time I've been using MVC 4 and
You consider having exact laws a bad thing? I'd rather have the laws I have to live under as exact as possible, with no wiggle room in which a corrupt police officer or judge (not the entire law enforcement or judiciary, talking about smaller levels of corruption here) has room to manoeuvre to get you no matter what.
The problem with the notion that you should follow the spirit of the law, and not just the letter, means that you now have two very different sets of rules to follow - one which is laid out word for word and any ambiguity can be argued objectively according to that wording, and the other which is entirely fuzzy and subject to change on a whim depending on who it is that is being held to it.
Problem is, that post is in reality nothing more than the account of someone who has shown that he doesn't want to be identified simply denying some-ones attempt to identify him - there's no guarantee he isn't simply lying because he wants to remain unidentified.
Hell, the issue would have happened if there were no gotos in use, and instead both statements were method calls - the unintended method call would still have happened.
Someone better tell Airbus that their 59ft panels on the A350XWB are somehow shorter than Wal-Marts 53ft panels...
The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.
If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...
And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.
That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.
Except your assertions are where the oversimplification occurs, as there is ample prior examples of an entity splitting into multiple smaller entities and separating debt obligations in the process. There is absolutely no scope for Scotland simply walking away from UK debt obligations without their own share - if they did that, they lose significant amounts in assets that would otherwise be transferred north of the border.
One example would be the £28Billion that Scottish banks are required to deposit in holding at the Bank of England (a requirement for the Scottish banks to be able to print and distribute their own currency) - walk away from the debt obligations and that wont be transferred back.
Osborne had to guarantee the debt, as any doubt surrounding it would have repercussions on the UKs credit rating internationally and the UK government cannot allow that to happen.
I'd also love for you to show me this international law which your comment so heavily relies on, because this is an internal issue between the UK and Scotland - external entities can label Scotland whatever they want, but ultimately its the agreement that the UK and Scotland comes to which dictates Scotlands ongoing debt obligations.
Uhm, no, that's nothing more than a bullshit excuse - the US did not have authority from the UN to depose the Iraqi government, they were never granted that in 1991, and they were never granted that at any time after 1991. They were given the authority to carry out specific actions in order to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but no more.
You also ignore the fact that as part of their request for help, the Kuwaiti government promised democratic elections in a free Kuwait. They never happened.
With all due respect, whether or not Scotland take a share of the UKs debt is solely down to negotiations between the British government and the independent Scottish government and most certainly not some label a newly independent Scotland would gain from third parties - so its entirely possible they could become a "successor state" with regard to the EU and still take their share of debt.
You realise they were set up by British corporations to handle British merchant trader funds in East Asia during the British Empires hay day, right? Just because they have foreign placenames in their name doesn't mean they are owned by entities in that locale.
Science Fiction came to life when the DC-X Delta Clipper which did everything the Grasshopper did, just 21 years ago.
Use something like Resharper in Visual Studio and you can learn a lot about the language, as it offers loads of little "this code block can be refactored this way for this reason" hints - shows you just what can be done and why.