One of the things I'm often curious about is how various BASIC interpreters organize memory for string storage. You'd think there's some way to reclaim memory after an expression involving intermediate strings is finished. But you don't see descriptions for how BASIC works in this regard.
Smalltalk's been enormously influential and successful... There is however a better way of understanding objects. Namely, "objects" are [defined to be] processes, "messages" are asynchronous, and Smalltalk's message invocations are indirect function calls. I know what you're thinking: "But no OO PL works like that. You won't understand anything that way." That's true: this suggested reframing won't help you understand any popular OO language, because they use indirect function calls instead of asynchronous message passing.
The indirect function calls of Smalltalk don't transform the semantics of programming. It's still data structures and algorithms. You can, if you adopt Kay's ideas wholesale, write programs where individual letters in a text typeset themselves (as Kay describes). I'm arguing that that model of programming is more accurately articulated in an async message passing frame.
Smalltalk's function calls do have an important benefit, which is polysemy. I'm stealing that word and not using it quite right. The benefit is you can define ideas that are not algorithmic. You can for instance define many methods for LOOKUP(key,table) that works for many data structures, and now you've defined not a recipe, but an idea that transcends recipes. Any recipe R that uses LOOKUP automatically works with all the data structures that LOOKUP works with, even though R itself may be a specific recipe for a specific data structure of its own.
That's a tremendous benefit, and it's worth using OO features to take advantage. But even so you're still living in an algorithms and data structures world. Polysemy is a linguistic feature and does not cause a mechanical or paradigmatic change.
Asynchronous messaging however does change how algorithms are designed, in much the way that Alan Kay anticipated, and also in a way that models real world entities in direct fashion. But everyone understands this part already.
So how is this a "better" way of thinking about objects? 1) It emphasizes the advantage of polysemy, which in my experience OO pedagogy tends to overlook, even though most everyone utilizes OO partly for that purpose; 2) It explains why OO programs remain organized as algorithms and data structures; and 3) it welcomes combining "object" techniques with A & DS techniques in the same program or function or even the same line of code. They are completely compatible, in the sense that the language or library or database is not "OO" or "non-OO".
> Any recipe R that uses LOOKUP automatically works with all the data structures that LOOKUP works with, even though R itself may be a specific recipe for a specific data structure of its own.
this seems similar to protocol extensions + associated types as used in swift maybe?
Yes. I don't know Swift, but it appears that Swift's protocol and class are similar to Java's interface and implementation (class), and defining a protocol would be required in Swift in order to define a generic table.LOOKUP(key) operator.
I understand you about the implied contract. I think it's more complex than that. People were making videos before the promise of ad revenue, and they were better videos. If people go away who make videos for money - which will never happen - it would be an improvement overall. If ad blockers do win, YT could edit their ads into the videos themselves making an ad blocker's job harder. YTers who want money could make their own independent deals with advertisers, as some do today. And YT can always charge money - as they do right now with premium. But if YT did that for all tiers, they couldn't dominate and they'd have competitors spring up. They know that. They also know if they ever asked anyone whether they agree to watch ads, most would say No. The prevalence of Ad blockers are proof that people don't want to watch the ads. But, as you point out, we do accept the free content. The thing is the world would likely be better if YT would charge everyone for access. Judging from video quality these days a lot of YTers could be doing something more productive than what they're doing now - I mean in an objective sense, better for economic health. But the real reason for these $0 tech services is to stifle competition and prevent the market from working. And that works to everyone's detriment. Basic economics doesn't function without prices.
This is the core of the faith which communists have. We take everything and give nothing back and then wonder why nobody wants to create anything. Goods and services simply materialize out of thin air. It's a meteorological phenomena really.
I agree with this. There was no meeting of the minds, no contract. But, the terms in the Google account probably include something about the terms for viewing youtube videos.
> You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business
You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not.
It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract.
Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.
As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract.
A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance"
I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.
If you bring a dog in, you cannot be sued for any sort of tort relating to breach of contract. At most, you could be asked to leave, trespassed if you refuse, and sued for damages if the dog broke something or someone.
Please don't attack others, and in general, it's not a good idea to use terms like Dunning-Kruger when you are incorrect. Ad blocking is not piracy under any statuatory or case law, period.
No, piracy is defined as stealing a vendor's exclusivity by making copies and putting them up on a web site. Ad blocking is not the same as making copies and distributing.
You might as well argue that covering your ears during a TV advertisement is piracy. That's a strange definition of the word if I ever saw one.
I think content piracy is generally accepted to not require re-distributing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I search "watch free movies online" and find a site streaming bad DVD rips, I fully believe that I am pirating that content against the wishes of the content owner.
I'd say generally accepted by the majority of English speaking/western society? If someone said they were going to "pirate a movie" there's next to zero chance they are referring to the distribution side of that endeavor.
I feel like OP isn't asserting anything even remotely controversial in that definition lol
Um... no? Maybe that's true for English speakers (I'm not a native speaker, so I won't make assumptions), but thinking that Western society views it that way is a big stretch, especially with streaming sites. While some might admit to watching something on a pirate site, many people don't refer to it as piracy when they're using a streaming service.
Who is claiming that using a streaming site is piracy? No one is saying that lol
What the guy was saying is that circumventing payment to watch a movie = pirating, and it seems like you're saying that's not the case. It seems you're saying that people saying "pirating" are referring circumventing payment and distributing, which is not at all what the majority of people mean by pirating.
Pirating != distribution for the vast majority of how people use that word - it means consuming the media without paying for it.
So "streaming service" (the term you used) implies something like Netflix or Hulu or something, which is a paid service and definitely not piracy. At least in the USA that's how that term is used.
I'm not actually sure what you're issue is at this point. In the US, if someone says they're going to "pirate a movie" they are assuredly not talking about how they are going to be the one distributing the movie, just consuming it - whether that's on a "streaming" site or just downloaded and watched locally.
It seems like your argument is that "piracy" is much more specific than how people actually use the word. SO it's a semantics thing, and that's really fucking stupid lol
Judging by the response to the parent come back, evidently TSMC deserves the high prices it will be charging. Why?
It's unrealistic to expect just anyone to start up a new fab. But if not one person among billions will start up a new fab it points to intrinsic difficulty or unpleasantness or lack of prestige in the task. A correctively high price has all kinds of advantages for the society.
I haven't seen any argument that difficult tasks shouldn't be priced high. Only name calling.
In this case its more its a 100+ billion investment to possibly produce a competing fab and its encumbered with many thousands if not more patents the likes of which will produce a minefield for any entrant. So far the silicon product market has just shrunk over the years with more and more failing to keep up with the latest process technology as the price of entrance and the patent warheads has risen.
> I was daunted by making the jump to C, then c++ and python. Only over time did I overcome the nerves and move on with Java, [...]
It sounds as if you did skip C++ and moved to Java instead. If so you serendipedously avoided the one language that's likely to cause problems. C++ doesn't work like the rest of the languages on your list, and it really is as full of land mines as people say - even though, with a good process, evidently it can be managed.
reply