|
|
FFS...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not familiar with the traditional use of a fig leaf in Western art.
It was a play on words on his typo. Fig? Rig? Give me credit for having some idea of what Arab garb would look like without your helpful google link.
 
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
:facepalm:
Cheers,
विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!)
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
|
|
|
|
|
 
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] is exactly what I had in mind when I read your first reply.
Cheers,
विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!)
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
|
|
|
|
|
LunaticFringe wrote: Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.
Thanks for that (see sig  )
LunaticFringe wrote: Oh, hey, BTW - what's a traditional Bedou fig
See fig[^], 2nd meaning. It's a bit old fashioned now, I must have read it in a book or something, I suspect one of the Jeeves and Wooster ones ...
|
|
|
|
|
I think that using the word "rum" is tantamount to cruel and unusual torture.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I code most of the time in C# and C. C# as a desktop application and C for real-time and embedded applications.
well, recently i assigned a job of maintaining an application written in java, assuming based on my knowledge in C# i will learn it quickly.Not bad anyway until this morning!
We have to add a new feature to the application.I added a new table to the MySql database,assigned a primary key for it as unsigned int and went to the java application to generate random unsigned ID values.
BUT THE HELL!
Java has not unsigned concept! There are workarounds and i may finally find a solution, but i am thinking about original java designers why they decided to NOT put this handy concept in the application.
Any idea or history you may share with me?
Behzad
|
|
|
|
|
Unsigned values are used by programmers - you said Java.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Rrowwwrr TwoWheeler?
|
|
|
|
|
Have a read of this[^] article; especially the following quote from Gosling:
"For me as a language designer, which I don't really count myself as these days, what "simple" really ended up meaning was could I expect J. Random Developer to hold the spec in his head. That definition says that, for instance, Java isn't -- and in fact a lot of these languages end up with a lot of corner cases, things that nobody really understands. Quiz any C developer about unsigned, and pretty soon you discover that almost no C developers actually understand what goes on with unsigned, what unsigned arithmetic is. Things like that made C complex. The language part of Java is, I think, pretty simple. The libraries you have to look up."
|
|
|
|
|
quippy: probably he didn't understand how unsigned works
smartass: as a language designer, he could well prevent the problems: all you need is overflow checking, no intrinsic conversions, and an explicit conversion.
smartass withotu answer: *smartass + Of course that complicates the language too, so we have to evaluate the benefits.
greybeard: Of course it's fecken complicated. Don't come to me for a diaper change
Anyway, it's an interesting decision from the langugae view because it keeps out a lot of complexity for an arbitrary gain. After all, from a comp sci view, the numeric liits are arbitrary.
However, that breaks down when you think about interoperability.
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: greybeard: Of course it's fecken complicated. Don't come to me for a diaper change
So, who's the greybreard here?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
|
|
|
|
|
|
also, I said greybeard, not brownpants.
|
|
|
|
|
Gosling is a J. Random Language Designer. If he really wanted to reduce the complexity of Java, he could have made switch work like Visual Basic's Select Case.
Java:
switch (myInt) {
case 1:
doSomething();
break;
case 2:
doSomethingElse();
default:
displayInvalidMyIntMessage();
}
VB:
Select Case MyInt
Case 1
DoSomething()
Rem Need no Break
Case 2
DoSomethingElse()
Case Else
DisplayInvalidMyIntMessage
End Select
Using the same keyword to exit both loops and glorified conditionals looks and feels like a hack in the language design. To be fair, Ritchie and Thompson, not Gosling, are to be blamed for this. Hejlsberg did the best that he could (enforcing the use of break) without breaking semantic compatibility with other C-style languages. But the Right Thing would have been to eliminate the atrocity of using break to exit switch blocks. break is to exit loops. This might be one of the few aspects in which I consider BASIC-style languages (actually, the structured subset of them) to be superior to C-style languages.
If you can play The Dance of Eternity (Dream Theater), then we shall make a band.
modified on Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
It can be very useful in a switch block to fall through from one case to the next when the conditions are moderately similar:
switch (variable)
{
case 1:
doOneType();
break;
case 2:
doPartialType();
case 3:
doTheRestOfTwoOrThree();
break;
...
It's time for a new signature.
|
|
|
|
|
I know. But falling through cases is not that common, and if you really, really want it hardwired into the language, you can use a keyword to fall through cases, which happens 1% of the time, instead of requiring a keyword with overloaded semantics not to* fall through cases, which happens 99% of the time.
* I am not an English native speaker. "to not fall" sounds more natural to me, but I have been told split infinitives are a bad, bad thing. What should I do?
Eduardo León
|
|
|
|
|
My advice is split them when it suits you. Sometimes not splitting the infinitive results in unnecessarily laboured sentence construction, for no actual gain - people would understand you either way. However, just because English is English, you'll find that in some cases it is splitting the infinitive that results in the laboured construction. If in doubt, try saying it out loud - if its difficult to say, it is probably difficult to understand.
There seems to be a lot of nazism (as in grammar-Nazi, not National Socialism  ) when it comes to teaching English. But the point is to be understood, so take some 'rules' with a pinch of salt. Most people (native English speakers) split infinitives all over the place. Actual, these days, most native English speakers don't even know what an infinitive is, split or otherwise. If a construct is commonly used and understood in spoken English, its prohibition is just pedantry.
|
|
|
|
|
That's right - let's boldly go where no one has gone before.
|
|
|
|
|
Ai ai Captain.
|
|
|
|
|
neosyntaxism?
BTW: Google still needs to catch up on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
leonej_dt wrote: But falling through cases is not that common
I disagree, it's something I (and colleagues) have used quite a lot in C/C++ over many years.
leonej_dt wrote: I am not an English native speaker.
No need to apologise, I would have great difficulty formulating a simple sentence in Spanish.
It's time for a new signature.
|
|
|
|
|
leonej_dt wrote: * I am not an English native speaker. "to not fall" sounds more natural to me, but I have been told split infinitives are a bad, bad thing. What should I do?
The cr@p about not splitting infinitives came from Classics studies, where Latin was part of the curriculum.
A couple of things that are impossible in Latin:
- Splitting infinitives: the Latin infinitive, as with most languages, is a single word, so you can't split it.
- Ending a sentence with a preposition: while this is technically possible (you can write any word anywhere on the page), it makes nonsense of a clause in Latin, where a preposition has to be followed by its target ("object" in confusing US grammar speak).
This led to pretentious (but obviously not-educated-enough) idiots declaring that everyone else spoke English incorrectly if they did not speak it the same as Latin. A little learning, as always, is a dangerous thing.
But there has never been a rule in English to mirror either of those Latin rules. You can split English infinitives as much as you like, and you can end every English sentence with a preposition, if you want to.
Incidentally, the last sentence in my reply does not end with a preposition -- "to want to" is a phrasal verb.
My Hobby: Catching pretentious dicks out with things like that.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
