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.
The best "lone wolf" developers probably use something like Lisp and a high amount of math-like abstraction to crank out vast amounts of features in a short time.
However, a good team programmer knows how OTHER typical programmers think and read code, and writes code that is easy for them to navigate, digest, and change. Team programming is more like authoring a good technical manual, not clever gee-whiz tricks.
Indeed. My theory is that many of those mysterious gamma-ray bursts are civilizations earning a Galactic Darwin award.
"Hey look, we can create mini anti-black-holes in our la ~ ^ & [NO CARRIER]
The record held by 1K ZX Chess for the past 32 years has just been beaten this week by the demoscene group Red Sector Inc. They have implemented a fully-playable version of chess called BootChess in just 487 bytes."
Link to Original Source
Not everyone can be Chuck Moore, sure, but anyone can easily exceed guys like John Resig or Guido Van Rossum. Folks here seem to think that if you're either as great as Moore or you're a drooling idiot. Because analogies are fun: You don't need to match Dirac to be a great physicist, or surpass Whitman to be a great writer.
> Inline specifically means "export this as a weak symbol".
Oh gee, and here I thought it meant merge basic blocks. Do you know _anything_ how C++ compilers even work??
>> I can chose between Microsoft's __inline or GCC god-awful __attribute__((always_inline)) syntax.
> Yes, but why are you trying to do that? You're fighting the optimizer and you're almost certain to lose.
You love to constantly make incorrect and incomplete assumptions.
1. I want to write ONE directive not clutter my code up with hacks PER compiler. _Why_ do standards exist ? To make everyone's live _easier_.
2. Gee, why do things like _Profiling_ exist. The *compiler* doesn't have access to *run-time* performance. The optimizer is dealing with a _subset_ of data. It doesn't know the "function temperature".
But go on keeping making excuses. You really don't have a clue.
No, it depends on the type and frequency of the changes. Some change patterns favor case lists and some favor sub-classing (in terms of fewest lines/blocks/modules that need to be changed). I don't believe one is inherently more common than another. Selecting the "best" solution requires knowledge and experience about the domain, and/or a good "horse sense" of domain analysis.
Predicting the future is never easy.
There are some other complexities to consider, such as if a set-oriented variation-on-a-theme becomes more appropriate than a hierarchy for modeling variation, but that's a long topic.
Your viewpoint is too idealistic in my opinion to result in a practical difference. You are fighting a personal war that nobody else is attending, tilting at windmills.
My two semi solutions are to put a ceiling on campaign contributions (which the current Supreme Court is against), and to have federal-level issue votes, not just representative votes.
Is it possible to use a big disk for both blocking light and for diffraction, per target object? That way both parties can be right. Win win. (Pardon me for sounding like a PHB there).
Will "AOL" be painted on the disk in huge letters?