kc5tja
I have not selected a replacement board yet (since my Nexys-2 still works fine, I intend on continuing to use it for the time being). If, after I post a complete set of Verilog sources, someone wants to try porting to the hardware of their choice, I'll be happy to include relevant links on the site. (Or until I change boards myself, whichever comes first.)
However, I do intend on completing Oberon at some point (or trying to solicit help in that area; porting OSes is most definitely NOT my strong suit). Instead of putting in ROM, though, it'll be bootable off of SD card.
The problem is it doesn't produce any gain in clarity for the purposes I'm using it for. I think for the acceptance tests, it's use is fine.
I can see if it were part of the public API, there's an argument that an interface could be used, but even there, I'm not sure it'd aid readability.
Semantically, however, they're of course identical.
Deeply nested closures are definitely a problem, but I usually solve that by factoring closures out into top-level functions of their own.
That said, one of Gophercloud's goals is to be as idiomatic as possible. Are you available on #go-nuts if I have questions? I'd like to play with this technique some more and get a feel for it before applying it to (and risk breaking) gophercloud's existing API.
Actor model libraries exist in various states of maturity for Go, as well.
You're right to think it's impossible to keep up; even getting this far, I've heard rumors and tremors about up-coming V3 APIs in several areas. I'm sure by the time V3 support is contributed, V4 will be on the drawing board. Thankfully, the general availability of a V3 API does not usually preclude the continuing support for V2.
All we can do is deliver value to our users in a consumable format while trying to remain aware of any changes in our ecosystem.
We're currently ahead of gcloud in that we have working code for server creation and actions. Much yet remains to be finished/implemented, however.
That being said, that Ruby is 10x slower than Go isn't that much of a surprise. It's not a string-interpreted language like the BASICs of old. It's interpreting byte-codes, and anyone who's ever written a 6502 or Z-80 emulator (essentially the same thing) can tell you, on average, most byte-codes take 10x as long to run as the corresponding function written in in-line C.
Computer science -- it works!
Just a head's up though -- I'm considering migrating the repository to the github.com/rackerlabs organization within a week or so, for consistency with other, more officially supported, API bindings.
Please see the project page at github.com/racker/gorax. Thanks!
Progress is kind of slow at the moment, but is proceeding more or less steadily. It's also the newest language binding, so it will of course not be as feature complete as, say, the Python or Node bindings.
Computers and programming don't have to be so complicated. People make them complicated.
what is wrong with... -- "grep word file" takes fewer keys to type and uses fewer resources (important on a heavily loaded server with tons of processes which may well prove compromised and you're trying to peruse the logs for evidence. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and donated it to the local shelter).
If you don't like it, use Yahoo!.
Even if CPAN was a standard library, that which you install from it is clearly not, which is what the argument to date has centered around.
What it boils down to is reputation. Trolls seek only to reduce the reputation of his victim.
I would suggest getting a bucket then.
"Have you been watching TV lately?"
Have you observed the people who regularly watch TV? As a general rule, people know far more about what diet plan their latest football jocks are on than they know about world geography. I particularly loved this demonstration of this simple fact: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qUYm50jQscw
Heh, all I can say is, "Poor Australia."
Nonetheless, in this hypothetical situation, you failed in your quest to lay Megan. Therefore, by your own words, it is your own fault.
This myth, that it is your own fault if you fail to achieve your own goals, forms the foundation for conservative viewpoint in this nation. I'm not here to preach the gospel of the Left (they have their own mistaken views too), but you have to concede, as heart-breaking as it is, that the Right isn't always either.
Recognizing a situation for what it actually is necessitates that we take human behavior as an animal into consideration when observing our own behavior. Taken in the original context of the statement, the author's claim that our failures are "our" fault is an indictment, not merely an observation.
"Failure" is never just a black-and-white situation. We live in a complex, chaotic world. It's time it's addressed as such.
If you need to have a network in place, while still preventing the urge to browse, you might want to try using some alternative networking infrastructure. Consider using AX.25 to transfer files, for example. Unless you configure TCP/IP to tunnel through AX.25, you won't be able to browse or use the Internet. But, you still have connectivity to your work-related file servers, since they'll (presumably also) have connectivity via AX.25 too.
But this is precisely what PG identified as being wrong with philosophy as it is currently taught.
Metaphysics is not feasible they are part of a material world.
What?
they react with it of course but it exists whether you can accept it or not.
If it reacts with the material world, it leaves the realm of philosophy, and enters the realm of testability (and hence, science). It ceases to be metaphysics, and becomes normal physics.
Everyone is trying to understand what happened to all that antimatter that was created during the bing bang. For every molecule there is another anti.
As I understand it, we have a pretty good idea as to what happened to all the anti-particles. Nature seeks the state of equilibrium at all times. Anti-particles would be attracted to their opposites, and destroy each other; this would be detected today as the cosmic background radiation, and represents the boundary in time at which the universe ceases to be opaque.
The question should be, why is there more matter than anti-matter? This is the actual question that is being pondered by cosmologists.
And what about time? who can explain that mystical concept?
Einstein.
In all these strange ideas, it's impossible to be satisfied that everything is only molecules.
These ideas happen to be testable in a laboratory, and the results are reproducable.
If everything is a chemical random chain reaction how can we all have similar ideas or visions of the future?
Because we communicate with each other. You didn't learn what you know today in a total vacuum. You were raised in a family. You went to school. Everything you know and value in your life is through indoctrination via institutions external to you. As you grow older, you internalize them. And as we all know from studying everything from perceptrons to propeganda, the more you beat something into someone's brain, the more they're going to accept it as truth.
This is what happened in philosophy. Three Greeks decided to write down what they thought they knew. Three people. Only three. Yet, they shaped the course of ALL humanity, directly or indirectly. We're still feeling the repurcussions of their thoughts today. The very fact we're having this discussion is because of them.
Only recently did Chemistry claim it's independence.
You state this as if it were some kind of political movement, just in its ways, and noble in its endeavors. In fact, most chemists of yesteryear thought that chemistry (which evolved from alchemy, remember, and had nothing to do with physics at all) was not related to physics. But as time progressed, there was an ever-increasing unification between physics and chemistry. Today, a chemist will more often than not agree that it's a narrow subset of what we call physics.
It's very highly specialized, but it is still physics. When I was most recently going through college, that was the first thing that the instructor mentioned. Chemistry is so thoroughly influenced by quantum mechanics that to deny it is itself pseudo-science. Nearly all of the early atomic research was performed by chemists (who, at the time, did NOT think of chemistry as a branch of physics). It was only when chemists wanted to peer into the behavior of their chemical reactions (from ionic bonds to fission, and all points in between) that the seeds for what we now call Quantum Physics were planted.
No, the realization that (quantum) physics and chemistry are essentially concerned with the same things is itself a very recent phenomina -- late 20th century at the earliest.