They should study to see if athiests are lacking an intuitive thinking.
I'd be interested in such a study as well, though I predict an opposite result. There is no evidence God does not exist, just as there is no evidence he does exist; therefore, atheism requires just as much faith as any other religion.
The core of the Julia implementation is licensed under the MIT license. Various libraries used by the Julia environment include their own licenses such as the GPL, LGPL, and BSD (therefore the environment, which consists of the language, user interfaces, and libraries, is under the GPL).
The syntax is obviously C-inspired, but with some changes, many of which seemed like experimentation -- doing something different just because it's different. Although I don't object to the philosophy, I'd like to see how those changes work out before investing a lot of time into them. In particular, the declaration syntax feels very strange to people who are used to C-style languages.
Really... *nobody* cares what style *you* prefer.
The most important person who cares what style he prefers is him. Really, that's all that matters.
Every person who ever reads your code disagrees. Programming is not a solitary activity.
I'm sure a smart preprocessor could deal with many indent styles just fine, but what's scary is when the language developers say, "here is how you will use our language." Because other people always find more clever things to do with flexible languages than the designers intended.
How does having a canonical brace format in any way limit what you are able to do with the language?
As mentioned below, in the Go community there isn't much discussion of formatting. If you prefer a technical reason, then the canon format can be easily enforced using the "go fmt" command. Using a separate brace style means you must either manually enforce it, or fork gofmt and make the changes yourself. In the end, is it really worth the extra effort?
Imagine you're watching a really good movie and your parents tell you to switch it off halfway through. Wouldn't you be angry? That has nothing to do with addiction.
Of course, the real problem with this statement is video games are much longer than movies. Zelda games can last 50 hours or more, depending on completion and whether you've played the game before or not. It's certainly not healthy to play games like that in a single sitting (this coming from a guy who played Mass Effect 2 in a single 24-hour session).
But the problem is not that you take away their super powers or anything like that, it's a bit more basic: They just want to know how the story ends! With games like Wii Sports and Mario Kart, the "stories" only last a few minutes, at which point it's easy to break away from the game.
Of course, game developers aren't stupid. Most games of the length of Zelda and Final Fantasy aren't written such that they have to be played in one sitting. The real trick, of course, is that you, as a parent, have to be able to find points in the story to switch off the game. This is not something you can do unless you are very familiar with the game itself, so my suggestion is this: Watch your child play the games. You don't have to watch every second; if you have a laptop you could get some work done during battles and puzzles and stuff like that. The point is to follow the story and find the best point to say "okay, that's enough for today" rather than just limiting it to half an hour a day.
Don't expect me to port existing code to your new language. Either make it compatible - i.e. an old language with new features - or provide me with an automated conversion tool.
One of Go's advantages are the features deliberately left out of the language, such as the typical class hierarchy, multiple inheritance, and operator overloading. Similar to conditional compilation in C, those features, while useful, are too easy to abuse and make code harder to read in the long run. So the Go devs left them out. You can't do something like that and keep backwards compatibility.
If backwards compatibility was necessary for a successful language, then every new language would C++.
K = 1/2 * m * v^2 (kinetic energy; integral of momentum with respect to velocity)
x = 1/2 * a * t^2 (position from acceleration; integral of velocity w.r.t. time)
U = 1/2 * k * x^2 (potential energy of a spring; integral of force w.r.t. distance)
E = 1/2 * C * V^2 (energy stored in a capacitor; integral of charge w.r.t. voltage)
E = 1/2 * L * I^2 (energy stored in an inductor; integral of voltage w.r.t. current)
A = 1/2 * tau* r^2 (area of a circle, integral of circumference w.r.t. radius)
Changing the formula actually brings it into line with the others. This is explained in both the "Pi is Wrong!" article and the Tau Manifesto.
As for spheres, remember that the volume of a sphere is 2/3 of that of a circumscribed cylinder. The volume of said cylinder is 1/2 * tau * r^2 * 2 * r = tau * r^3. The tau formula clearly shows this relationship, while the pi formula obfuscates it.
The number of computer scientists in a room is inversely proportional to the number of bugs in their code.