afternooner

Yea, I liked the idea of what go was waning to do. They wanted classes and objects without the classes and inheritance, but all they've done is replace that headache with an interface headache.

Okay, can someone who understands this explain it a little better. My understanding is that ARC (or automatic reference counting) wasn't garbage collection because there isn't any garbage collection. I had thought that ARC was a compiler optimization that would analyze your code and add the deconstructor code while compiling based off some possible usage graph or whatnot. ARC therefore is not garbage collection. Yes, it's memory management, but to link the two as the same is wholly inaccurate. Please chime in to let me know how wrong I am.

On containers, while it's entirely possible to constrain the type, it's also possible to use AnyObject

    var example = Dictionary<Int,AnyObject>()

I could argue that if you work for the DOD, it's entirely possible that all your code will only execute once. Sadly, I do work for a government agency, but my code only runs once because of mismanagement... :(

Oceania here we come.

Question for those who understand this, why can the government force a middle man to exist in the first place? It seem to a layman to violate several other rights.

Why can the government force a middle man to exist in the first place, that doesn't seem in line with capitalism at all?

What I'm more amused by is the level of scepticism over an self contained eco-system. In order for any eco-system, either contained or not contained, there has to be much greater tolerances to extreme conditions that we generally acknowledge. In truth, outside of absolute extremes where organic life is simply impossible because or either denaturing or absolute destruction of organic material, life will exist. It's also entirely possible that this bottle now contains bacteria, fungi, or other organisms that are much more efficient at breaking down the organic material left by the dying plant mater.

Why can I not do this with my git commits? If you're trying to track down a blame on a security bug, this would be an amazing way to expose that.

Name a letter or a word and there is some project out there that had it before. If you come to grips with this now, your adult life will be much easier.

Enterprise and government comes with a lot of baggage that no sane developer would ever try to take on. You are manifesting your priorities on them, and that simply may not be the case. The $200 price point is likely that high in order to keep the client base low. I'm not saying you're wrong, but Apple itself barely supports enterprise with most of their enterprise management bits being third party. A laptop without a docking station??? Crazy, they might as well not sell computers...

Source: Work for government, not entirely sane, have had Apple reps brought in to discuss in house dev, written in house application, ruby, C#, C, Obj-C, JS, C++ developer in order of preference.

Um, because I don't know if it's a good thing. How hard is that for you to understand. Seriously, did you read my comment before deciding to lay on the snark.

I agree, and the 30 day trial isn't enough. It would be side projects, so I may get to hack on it for a day and maybe a night or two. I can write Obj-C, and Java, they just aren't as intuitive or enjoyable to me. And lets face it, $200 is just too much to spend when RubyMotion may not exist for version 4, and then I have an entire application that needs to be ported into Obj-C and Java... And a promise of open sourcing it doesn't help, because there may be no maintainers. IronRuby, now that C# has dynamics, would be awesome. But it hasn't been updated in 3 years. I'd even drop $100 sight unseen. But $200... Noooope.

It could be a bad sign, or it could speak to priorities, and your priorities are not their priorities it seems. Personally, I accept all pull requests that are solid, written to my standards, fix or extend a feature that is a priority, are accompanied with unit tests, and do not impact or impinge on another feature or future feature. I do not however accept all pull requests. Part of this is that if there is no demand and it's a single individuals edge case, then I'll very heavily scrutinize the patch. If I don't agree, don't understand exactly what every line is doing, or do not feel it will be used by a significant portion of the user base then I won't pull it. Because moving forward, I will have to maintain it, and that isn't free. And if people don't like that, they can fork it.

Wiser men than I will choose to not name-call, though I live to no such standard. If you are a male and feel your rights are being impinged, you're as much of a loser as you are delusional. Get your head out of your ass and stop being a little bitch.

No, I've read the propaganda, it's illogical at best. Just seems to be a surge in butthurt little boys running around.

It's not an unreasonable point, but I feel like this is different. Either way, we'll have to see how this turns out.

I don't see the tl;dr as you do, but if that's the perception of most people, then I am in error.

My source, a leading mens rights site. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/gain...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your meaning.

I can only say that this is a fitting response. From the farce of Men's Rights, PUA & brah culture to general misogyny, I'm getting a little tired of many of the youth of my gender. Has anyone seen any studies on why we're seeing this surge of ignorance?

I would encourage you to re-think this stance. Interdisciplinary conversation is a tremendous tool to approaching hard problems, conversions, and ideas. I've encountered this enough in my life to know it to be very beneficial. We get arrogant when we specialize, often missing simple solutions because we assume that the solution has to be hard because we're very smart, and we haven't effectively solved it yet.

I've often had aha moments when someone who didn't understand the problem, framed a question in a way that caused me to reconsider my approach.

Besides, jargon, not comprehension, is what keeps many smart people out of conversations that they can definitely add value.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Much of the content on HN is long form journalism, some is content that is so specifically specialized in a field, that only those with thesis in that field will understand. Part of the brilliance of conversation on the web is interactions between disparate fields. On may articles, if I have to read all the way through a theoretical physics post and understand it without a synopsis, I wouldn't be able to add any value to the conversation, and the thread becomes an echo chamber. The initialism tl;dr does matter, because it's a clean and easy way to identify the content that someone looking for a synopsis will look for.

I understand the goal. HN doesn't want to become reddit, and values engaged discussion. But tl;dr isn't reddit, and it isn't going away. Language is ever evolving, and the way we talk today would have sent my granddad into a tizzy. Part of being a platform, and HN is a platform for ideas and conversations, is that the people will decide how to manage that relationship. Moderation can only trim the edges, and remove the bad actors, but the tonne and tools will not be set by moderation, but rather cultivation by the users.

The system is working perfectly, if you subscribe to the belief that you can own an idea. If an idea can be property, and you can control how your property is used and distributed just like any other property you own. I can not make a product, but simply licence it's use. A middle man is after all the bulk of capitalism. The patent trolls are a solid business model, and the system isn't broken. Again, this is only if you subscribe to the notion that an idea can be owned.

I don't think you can own an idea, actually I know you can't. But we create an artificial and abstract environment in order to put real world constraints on things that simply cannot be contained. It's why we get all these stupid laws, and why they don't work. They are trying to do the impossible.

A corporation is not a person, an idea is not property. But it will take a revolution to change that, and I'm too lazy to start it.

Although I'm opposed to transitions in general, the editor/platform is really awesome.

I'm really interested to see how this plays out. Zenimax definitely has a case when you read the filing. So who knows, they may have some grounds.

Oh, I must have missed the breakdown by race. Did you have that handy?

What are you going on about?

Yup, it totally looks like underpants.

Interesting, it's definitely a competitor to SharePoint if coupled with other services. There is just something about the graphics that makes me feel it's dated unfortunately. And apparently vulnerable to Heartbleed.