And once again, someone is ripping a CF hard drive out of an MP3 player. This time it's the Rio Carbon. This one is also cheaper than typical 4 or 5 GB CF hard drives - and inside the Carbon is a Seagate with 5 GB of storage. As usual with such instructions: don't try this at home. As the author so nicely puts it: In fact, you will probably end up with $249 worth of useless junk. - if you do try it anyway, you can report back Here's the original article.
Bill on what Ivan left behind from Grand Cayman.
At Bill Bumgarner you can find the original article.
Noted, I need to take a closer look at that. I've been pondering for quite a while what I should move on to after Python - Scheme would be an alternative, but after my longer time with Python, it somehow feels too verbose to me.
Somehow a not entirely unimportant factor that the Lisp community likes to ignore: names shouldn't be too long, otherwise you'll wear out your fingers typing. Sure, with macros you can make things more compact, but that's not what macros are for. A language with a script orientation should help you formulate your program quickly. In scsh, for example, that's far from the case.
However, when I look at the language definition, the whole thing is a bit strange. Many areas feel somewhat unfinished and un-lispy. Some of the concepts (e.g., exception handling) are rather primitive. Also, the foundation on heavily side-effect-oriented programming (due to symbols being used as hooks for everything and anything) is inelegant. And last but not least, the death blow: dynamic scoping. While cushioned by lexical namespace assignments, still: dynamic scoping is almost always more reason for trouble than joy.
Other aspects, however, are quite appealing, especially the very lean language scope and the few but efficient basic data types.
The syntax should become somewhat more logical - for example, marking all destructive functions with !, marking all property checks with ? - that's compact to write and easy to remember. For instance, the choice of set-nth for the non-destructive and nth-set for the destructive variant of changing the nth element of a data structure isn't really memorable and begs for confusion.
All in all, a clever idea, but probably less of a grand slam than it's made out to be. More in the class of Emacs Lisp - script Lisp, but a bit hacky.
At Lambda the Ultimate - Programming Languages Weblog there's the original article.
Oh Kinners, those Heise guys don't really know much either. Yes, the standard doesn't define every impossible case. So what? RFCs never do either. It's not necessary either - just because a standard doesn't define every possible situation down to the last detail, that doesn't mean programmers can throw their brains away and just build in whatever causes trouble. It's not the standard that's defective or has weaknesses - it's the implementations in the programs. A standard might not be complete - but that would mean that functionality in relation to the content of the standard is not sufficiently defined. But not that everything that's not part of the standard is not sufficiently defined. Or something like that.
At heise online news there's the original article.
I'll translate the German text to English while preserving the Markdown structure and links:
We'll translate it: we found nothing, but we still want to continue extorting the economy and therefore need another six-month extension. We won't find anything by then either, but until then we'll certainly write black figures through the extortions and can then afford the debacle. Oh yes, and the IBM witnesses have deaf ears - the colleague here also says so, who admittedly has nothing to do with the whole mess, but we couldn't find a competent witness. At heise online news there's the original article.
Above all, the BVDW is missing its own investigative powers for exploiters and producers in the form of information requests against Internet providers for easy access to user data. - yes sure, let's just give rights holders police powers. They're out of their minds.
At heise online news there's the original article.
A good (and correct) idea. However, the question immediately arises as to how much and to whom bribes will be paid to avoid getting on the list ... Cynical? Me? Not at all. That's called being realistic. At WDR.de there's the original article.
