I don't believe the expansion of the universe makes any notable difference on the scale of a solar system.
The idea that Jupiter moved inwards then back out would have the back out movement come from flinging smaller planetoids out of their orbit and exchanging angular momentum.
But Jupiter is massively massive, to misuse English. It's hard to believe all those small asteroids and junk would have enough bulk and momentum to make a difference on it.
Was there a lot more junk flinging around back then? I don't get it.
To get it to pass, rename it JobCreator++
Let me clarify. It may be "software engineering science" to study reasons existing code bases need changes (written in varied languages and paradigms), but as given, it is not OOP-specific science. The
I do not believe there are ANY field studies in Meyer's book that show OOP "being better". You are welcome to prove me wrong.
Maybe what he really wants is logic programming, along Prolog's line.
civilization reaches a point where its porn and virtual reality [preoccupy them]
Until..."I've been hacked! She has 3 green dicks! That I can live with, but not her looking like Kim Jong-Un now."
Next you'll be telling me you can create operating systems in less than 15GB!
If you complain, we'll re-write it in Java and make it 30GB
"illegal moves...may cause...strange things to happen"
Quantum chess, my favorite! Oh wait, that's the prenup fineprint
Do you mean % of software devoted to maintenance? % devoted to "changing data formats"? I know later in the book he claims OOP wraps data formats and therefore allegedly reduces the impact of those on code. But those later arguments are spurious in my opinion when compared to the alternatives. Adapters can be made in any paradigm. And reducing that 18% slice may increase other slices. Either way, those 2 slices are not measures of OOP improvements.
Toldja, 640 bytes otta be enough for anyone. -Gill Bates
I bet other civilizations failed to travel outside their star system because they devoted all their energy to trying to solve the Fermi Paradox.
Yes it is a form of "soft" censorship. So be it. We have to sacrifice some ideals to avoid living in a corporate waste-land. Tradeoffs tradeoffs.
You are free to tune out and make all that money worthless and put the people you want on the ballot.
What "works" for you or me doesn't necessarily scale to the rest of voters.
That's what they get for using double underscores in function names.
Paul Graham partially credits Lisp for making him rich via his store-site start-up, despite having viable competitors. The company that bought him out eventually converted it to a more conventional language stack for day-to-day maintenance.
The next probe will be Zombie 2.