x = ((4*A) || B)? C||D : E && F || (G +3);
My rule it that if you have to even think more than a second about precedence then there is somewhere out there who will misinterpret it.
By the way Kernighan claimed that he should have done pemdas+left to right associativity between operators of the same precedence, instead of the present 15 levels of precedence in C and sixteen in C++.
I over parenthesize C/C++ expressions. There are so many precedence levels that it is easy to forget who goes first**. There's a limit of course, I wouldn't write 4+(5*6) but I would certainly fully parenthesize:
x = 4*A|| B? C||D: E && F || G +3;
** Brian Kernighan admitted to having the table of precedence glued to his monitor, since he himself can't keep them straight.
So let me get this straight, the absence of evidence is mere proof of their culpability? Not that you are biased or anything.
They have been accused for 25 years non-stop of the many crimes; and while some sleazy stuff has been found, under extensive examination by a Republican prosecutor (kenneth starr) and a republican head of investigation (FBI) nothing worth prosecuting was ever found.
Yeah, I otherwise always trust CEOs and politicians. Marissa is the only one among them that I wouldn't trust.
Perl is proven to be fundamentally broken. Here are two very entertaining videos about how to exploit weird array casting, hashes and so on. I really think every Perl programmer should have seen it.
What do you say about this criticism and the exploited flaws?
LW: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Well then, don't do that."
This answer is a cop-out to a clear flaw found in the language. That is, list flattening. There are two basic common errors when implementing your first interpreter. They happen because the natural efficient, elegant, but incorrect solution lead you that way. The errors are, namely, dynamic scoping and list flattening.
Heck even LISP created by giants of computer science had the dynamic scope error which shows you how easy is to fall in that trap. Dynamic scoping comes from searching in the dynamic environment \pi recursively for the declaration of the given value, instead of searching upwards in the lexical symbol table for the current value. A similar naive representation leads to flattened lists. Trust me, been there, done that myself, both errors. If you design your interpreter cleanly, the code pulls you in that direction.
Lisp fixed that error early on. Perl creator Larry Wall solution to "break pedal doesn't work" is "stop using the break pedal" (yay car analogy!). Seriously, that is what you have to say about that noob error?
Presumably the basic tax deduction would go away and taxes would increase more steeply thereafter. In other words, people making over $30K would see no noticeable increase in income. This is a program meant for people at the very bottom of the wage scale, or about 40 million people at $10K each this is $400 billion which is less than social programs.
Not at all, a composition of independent tests that have high false positives is still very useful. Search engines are an example of such. They collate weak signals with high false positives into a single ranking function, and if many of them give high values then the chances that you now have a false positive are rather low.
People who are often surprised about this at first, but if you think about it just for a little while, it makes sense.
This. C++ has undergone four major revisions in the last 20 years and finally a small powerful core is starting to emerge there. Add the issues with Java because of Oracle ownership and the choice for a major compiled programming language is C++.
A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only.
In Canada, private member/opposition party bills go nowhere. In practice only the cabinet proposes laws.
This is no longer the case. A quality, well built Camry, Civic, BMW or Accord loses about 10% when you drive it off the lot. Some American cars as well as some high end cars on the other hand do lose a lot more of their value on possession sometimes even more than 25%.
Airplanes are public transit, and while they have windows almost all people shut down the screens and watch movies instead.
In many other countries judges are way more empowered to issue summarily dismissals on the face of a ridiculous trial. In the US the standard for summary dismissals is much too high.
AI has made steady progress over the last twenty years. Nothing has happened that puts it over the threshold of a revolution. New applications will be found, and new software would be developed, just like algorithms and information retrieval were key to Search Engines and Google Maps, but this didn't mean an era of algorithms and IR descended upon us.
The more AI buys into the hype the stronger the backblow will be when it fails to deliver. Read up about the AI winter which happened in exactly the same way in the 1980s.
According to you and the aforementioned late doctor, these people are apparently no longer human and can be disposed of. No matter that many people who are comatose and on life support eventually recover from their injuries/illnesses and resume their lives.
Indeed current practice is to disconnect those people when there are no signs of brain activity. And no, despite what Hollywood tells you not "many people" recover from Vegetative state (VS). Very, very few ever do, and this is often attributed to misdiagnosis of VS.
"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa