News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

avdd_

Re:Functions Should Be Short And Sweet, But Why? on Wednesday January 22, 2014 @08:19AM (#7102383)
So why does the main function in this example violate the principle ... i.e. where is the dispatch table?
Re:Prototypes Are Not Classes on Sunday January 19, 2014 @06:14PM (#7086519)
I've read it twice and still can't find the point.
Re:Asciiflow on Sunday January 19, 2014 @05:26PM (#7086335)
unhelpful
Re:Asciiflow on Sunday January 19, 2014 @05:22PM (#7086312)
Putting an informative README in your git repository seems a pretty common practice these days.
Re:GNU Guix 0.5 released on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @09:02PM (#6892406)
> Guix is a version of Nix

Why would I use one and not the other?

Re:Python 3.4 Beta 1 Released on Sunday November 24, 2013 @11:25PM (#6792477)
No one objected to using "pure" instead of the more common "abstract" (which is the actual antonym of "concrete") ?? Why do people do this?
Re:History of T on Friday November 22, 2013 @09:41AM (#6780940)
why does this not have a date?
Re:The Impossible Music of Black MIDI on Wednesday October 30, 2013 @10:38PM (#6644892)
It's not a song, it's a prelude. And actually not very technically difficult, one reason for its immediate and enduring popularity. The simultaneous chords are just played very quickly one after the other and not "rolled".
Re:Firefox 25 is released on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @10:45PM (#6639120)
Actually, it's the sharing of search terms across tabs that is useful, and is still supported.
Re:Firefox 25 is released on Tuesday October 29, 2013 @10:40PM (#6639099)
Why? I found that useful.
schrodinger's ladder?
Re:How to support both Python 2 and 3 on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:40AM (#6158749)
Well zed seems to agree

https://twitter.com/zedshaw/status/364118939233554432

> they've been keeping this "dual mode" option mostly a secret so as to not have to admit they fucked up

Re:How to support both Python 2 and 3 on Monday August 05, 2013 @02:34AM (#6158740)
> I'll start with the conclusion: making backwards incompatible version of a language is a terrible idea, and it was bad a mistake.

> So let me fix that: I do recommend a single code base as the solution.

> The original advice to think very separately about your 2.x and 3.x codebases was very wrong, has wasted a ton of time (since you end up porting to python 3 twice), and overall slowed down the adoption of py3k, a slowdown that fortunately is finally lifting.

Is this opinion common? Do Guido and the other core developers admit they were wrong?

> Python 3.0 will break backwards compatibility. Totally. We're not even aiming for a specific common subset.

That a single code base is now possible, albeit "not entirely idiomatic", does support the conclusion that the original aim to break compatibility was misguided at best, and raises questions about the governance of Python overall.

What is with this low-contrast trend?? Are the complainers not loud enough? Please stop doing that!
Re:Thank you HN, sorry HN on Saturday March 09, 2013 @10:41PM (#5350603)
This.

The best way to reciprocate is to commit to being the best "you" you can be. Good things will flow naturally from that.

Re:Virtualenv's bin/activate is Doing It Wrong on Wednesday February 27, 2013 @06:30AM (#5291796)