archived stringclasses 2
values | author stringlengths 3 20 | author_fullname stringlengths 4 12 ⌀ | body stringlengths 0 22.5k | comment_type stringclasses 1
value | controversiality stringclasses 2
values | created_utc stringlengths 10 10 | edited stringlengths 4 12 | gilded stringclasses 7
values | id stringlengths 1 7 | link_id stringlengths 7 10 | locked stringclasses 2
values | name stringlengths 4 10 ⌀ | parent_id stringlengths 5 10 | permalink stringlengths 41 91 ⌀ | retrieved_on stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | score stringlengths 1 4 | subreddit_id stringclasses 1
value | subreddit_name_prefixed stringclasses 1
value | subreddit_type stringclasses 1
value | total_awards_received stringclasses 19
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
True | kaidon | null | You can deploy Silverlight applications as Out-Of-Browser apps. In which case, why not just use WPF? I don't know... maybe if the WPF+Silverlight teams talked to each other about the big picture, instead of making 2 different, yet ridiculously similar tools; there could be a more unified solution. | null | 0 | 1316268263 | False | 0 | c2kjgcl | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjgcl | t1_c2kj2lx | null | 1427611652 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Cost most certainly comes into play a lot of the times. Don't kid yourself. I can't even count how many times I've had to use PHP because the company I worked couldn't afford Windows hosting, or even host the server themselves. Cost **is** an issue. | null | 0 | 1316268390 | False | 0 | c2kjgpe | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjgpe | t1_c2kjg1w | null | 1427611657 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | BlatantFootFetishist | null | Documentation strings are useless if they merely echo the method signature. In fact, they're worse than useless, because they add noise to the code without providing any benefit. | null | 0 | 1316268398 | False | 0 | c2kjgqa | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjgqa | t1_c2kjenf | null | 1427611657 | -10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | thatfunkymunki | null | Java has had these features (interfaces and abstract classes) for years and years, what's new here? | null | 0 | 1316268519 | False | 0 | c2kjh29 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjh29 | t3_kikut | null | 1427611662 | -3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | lucidguppy | null | I usually use ii jj and kk. I think the only common word that has "ii" is Hawaii. Hawaii is very far away. | null | 0 | 1316268684 | False | 0 | c2kjhhl | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjhhl | t1_c2kje0u | null | 1427611668 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | deong | null | I don't think the article is really addressing the point that the probe string can be shorter than the strings in the list at all. If you take that into account, the complexity becomes O(min(K,N)*M), assuming a constant length N for the strings in the list (depending on how you describe the details of the problem, if they're really constant then the whole thing just becomes O(M)).
As I read it, the article was simply correcting an error I might expect one of my beginning students to make. If experienced CS majors/graduates aren't aware that the complexity of algorithms can be bounded by functions of more than one variable, and in fact that such bounds are often appropriate, then we've got bigger problems I think.
For what it's worth though, babazka is correct that O(MN) is the canonical way of expressing what the article talks about. O(MN) doesn't mean you have to check every character in every string. It means you *potentially* have to check every character in every string. You've added extra assumptions in your simplification that aren't in the original problem. In the original problem, you can't devise an algorithm that always works unless it has the worst-case behavior of O(MN) (ignoring things like hashing that were outside the scope of the discussion). You could of course define some X=MN and then declare the algorithm to be O(X), but I would argue that this is not the natural and canonical way most computer scientists would approach the problem. | null | 0 | 1316268707 | False | 0 | c2kjhjv | t3_ki0wp | null | t1_c2kjhjv | t1_c2kf39w | null | 1427611668 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | pistacchio | null | it's new that if you think that go interfaces are java interfaces, you didn't get go. | null | 0 | 1316268766 | False | 0 | c2kjhp6 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjhp6 | t1_c2kjh29 | null | 1427611670 | -7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Last time I checked all servers around here ran Linux. That's real-world for you. | null | 0 | 1316268779 | False | 0 | c2kjhq7 | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjhq7 | t1_c2kjfpf | null | 1427611670 | -15 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | xardox | null | > "I tweeted ..."
That's where I stopped reading. | null | 0 | 1316268840 | False | 0 | c2kjhvc | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjhvc | t1_c2kii6n | null | 1427611672 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | __j_random_hacker | null | I agree. Using interfaces instead of multiple inheritance is a good idea, but not a new idea. (I wouldn't be surprised if it predates Java too.) | null | 0 | 1316268874 | False | 0 | c2kjhyy | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjhyy | t1_c2kjh29 | null | 1427611673 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | martinKaas | null | lisp? | null | 0 | 1316269102 | False | 0 | c2kjil0 | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjil0 | t1_c2kjdwq | null | 1427611687 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | the_opinion | null | #lol | null | 0 | 1316269341 | False | 0 | c2kjj6i | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjj6i | t1_c2kjhvc | null | 1427611690 | 9 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | I'm being an idiot on purpose, dipshit. | null | 0 | 1316269388 | False | 0 | c2kjjbi | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjjbi | t1_c2kj8rr | null | 1427611691 | -15 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | lolomfgkthxbai | null | What should I use to avoid HQL? | null | 0 | 1316269548 | False | 0 | c2kjjrl | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjjrl | t1_c2kj9kv | null | 1427611698 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | thatfunkymunki | null | How are they different from abstract classes in Java? | null | 0 | 1316269554 | False | 0 | c2kjjs6 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjjs6 | t1_c2kjhp6 | null | 1427611698 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ascii | null | There is a huge differencve between Java interface and structural typing, which is what Go supports. In Java, something has to expicitly implement an interface in order to be cast:able to that interface. In structurally typed languages like Go, it is enough to have a compatible type signature in order to be cast:able to a type. This is an extremely important difference when you want to tie together two pieces of code that where not originally written with each other in mind, something which happens all the time when using third party libraries. If you have a scripting background, you can thing of structural typing as the statical typing-equivalent of duck typing.
BTW, Go did not invent structural typing, but it did popularize it. And it's a very useful feature. | null | 0 | 1316269590 | False | 0 | c2kjjwa | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjjwa | t1_c2kjh29 | null | 1427611699 | 21 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mattgrande | null | I will freely admit that I don't "get Go." Don't be a dick when someone asks a question. | null | 0 | 1316269689 | False | 0 | c2kjk5j | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjk5j | t1_c2kjhp6 | null | 1427611702 | 15 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | "Lisp" and "sane syntax" in one sentence. LOL.
Apart from that, it isn't even statically typed. | null | 0 | 1316269758 | False | 0 | c2kjkc2 | t3_khpzu | null | t1_c2kjkc2 | t1_c2kje1w | null | 1427611704 | -1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | shoeOnHeadPls | null | I've often wondered how non-english-speakers find programming what with all the english function names and tag names and acronyms. | null | 0 | 1316269800 | False | 0 | c2kjkgk | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjkgk | t1_c2kjate | null | 1427611706 | 13 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | With "proprietary stuff" I actually meant the requirement of Silverlight/WMV decoder to watch the presentation.
Proprietary has nothing to do with the price, but with the amount of options you have if the original vendor decides to EOL the product (like Silverlight now and .NET in the future). | null | 0 | 1316269896 | False | 0 | c2kjkpx | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjkpx | t1_c2kjd0e | null | 1427611710 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | joesb | null | What if you don't have control over the generated JSON but only have to consume it. How do you know his situation enough to say hat it's always wrong to hAve reason to choose one library over another? | null | 0 | 1316269936 | False | 0 | c2kjkui | t3_kfirl | null | t1_c2kjkui | t1_c2jxsa3 | null | 1427611712 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | See http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kii9z/f_30_video_shows_type_provider_usage_now/c2kjkpx | null | 0 | 1316269938 | False | 0 | c2kjkut | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjkut | t1_c2kjg1w | null | 1427611712 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | benjumanji | null | I work in the front office of one of the biggest investment banks in the world. It's. NET all over. Grow up. | null | 0 | 1316269994 | False | 0 | c2kjl0c | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjl0c | t1_c2kjhq7 | null | 1427611714 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Banks == fail. | null | 0 | 1316270128 | False | 0 | c2kjleb | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjleb | t1_c2kjl0c | null | 1427611720 | -14 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ErstwhileRockstar | null | lolQL? | null | 0 | 1316270153 | False | 0 | c2kjlgz | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjlgz | t1_c2kjjrl | null | 1427611720 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | 7Geordi | null | There is value in having a tool to slow your competitor's business. There is value in having a tool that raises barriers to entry in your market.
Patents do both of these things very well, especially in the software and consumer electronics worlds. | null | 0 | 1316270207 | False | 0 | c2kjlmr | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kjlmr | t1_c2kippn | null | 1427611722 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | anonfool72 | null | A candidate for the wtf sub-reddit..? | null | 0 | 1316270232 | False | 0 | c2kjlpc | t3_kgqnz | null | t1_c2kjlpc | t1_c2k7pbi | null | 1427611723 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ScannerBrightly | null | In the book, the world was almost destroyed by humanity in the Praxic Age, when technology advanced quickly culminating in the _Terrible Events_ and the Reconstitution. During this time, the scholars lived extramuros with the saeculars | null | 0 | 1316270486 | False | 0 | c2kjmed | t3_kgbzq | null | t1_c2kjmed | t1_c2kj4mt | null | 1427611732 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rmxz | null | Yet startups can offer far more aggressive stock options than most large firms. | null | 0 | 1316270568 | False | 0 | c2kjmm6 | t3_khx0u | null | t1_c2kjmm6 | t1_c2kh0zp | null | 1427611735 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | kolme | null | I am definitely using this in my projects.
new Ajax.Request("/stuff", {
onSuccess: doActualStuff,
onError: ಠ_ಠ
}); | null | 0 | 1316270591 | True | 0 | c2kjmp1 | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjmp1 | t1_c2kjg7g | null | 1427611736 | 53 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | > There is value in having a tool that raises barriers to entry in your market.
The level of money and time it takes a patent from conception to issued can take over 5 years.
Any company that can predict another companies business plan in 5 years time probably doesn't need to worry about patents.
| null | 0 | 1316270634 | False | 0 | c2kjmt6 | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kjmt6 | t1_c2kjlmr | null | 1427611737 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rmxz | null | > I think if your in it 'solely' for the money, big companies pan out better.
How so?
Most of the people I know that got rich themselves (as opposed to were in rich families before) did so through start-ups. | null | 0 | 1316270685 | False | 0 | c2kjmyj | t3_khx0u | null | t1_c2kjmyj | t1_c2kh9fk | null | 1427611739 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ztfee | null | It could be valid in Java though. 2 years ago, a coworker wrote something like "static public void touché(...)." His whole code was a mess and the fact that he used accents in his methods just confirmed that I was in a world of pain (also weird file encoding, bugs, throwing non-catchable exceptions...) | null | 0 | 1316270812 | False | 0 | c2kjnaq | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjnaq | t3_kicbo | null | 1427611744 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | shimei | null | > BTW, Go did not invent structural typing, but it did popularize it.
At this point, does Go have enough users to be called "popular"? OCaml also uses structural subtyping--and has since the start--and is used at companies like Jane Street and elsewhere for large real world codebases. | null | 0 | 1316270874 | False | 0 | c2kjngm | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjngm | t1_c2kjjwa | null | 1427611747 | 27 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | moosemorals | null | When you say "standard English", do you mean en-us, en-uk or some other variant? | null | 0 | 1316270944 | False | 0 | c2kjnnt | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjnnt | t1_c2kjate | null | 1427611749 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | dyydvujbxs | null | http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247#comment-3085 | null | 0 | 1316271023 | False | 0 | c2kjnvv | t3_ki52y | null | t1_c2kjnvv | t1_c2khnuk | null | 1427611752 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | awj | null | No, it doesn't prove his point, because his point doesn't make any sense.
There are only two ways that an ORM can fetch *exactly* the columns/data you need: it guesses this correctly, or you tell it what you want. I don't see any possible way for an ORM to make this guess other than fetching everything that represents the object (with optional lazy loading).
The other possibility is that you have to tell it what you want. There's no way around this, and the "that's exactly what you do in SQL" is as much a sign of abstraction leakage here as "they both happen on a computer." | null | 0 | 1316271038 | False | 0 | c2kjnxo | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjnxo | t1_c2kj5r1 | null | 1427611753 | 8 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ztfee | null | > Integrates with the Interface Builder
So you still need to install Xcode? | null | 0 | 1316271100 | False | 0 | c2kjo3z | t3_khqu6 | null | t1_c2kjo3z | t3_khqu6 | null | 1427611754 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | TacticalJoke | null | >I've personally found branching in Hg to be a bit awkward though.
Awkward how? Mercurial supports git's branching model and more.
There are three ways to branch in Mercurial:
* anonymous branching (essentially git branches that don't have names)
* bookmark branching (essentially git branches)
* named branching (like git branches, but every changeset has a "branch: foo" field, which lets you see which
branch any particular changeset belongs to)
Anonymous branching and bookmark branching are great for short-lived tasks. Named branching is good for long-term tasks, such as "1.x branch" or "stable branch". | null | 0 | 1316271118 | False | 0 | c2kjo62 | t3_khkyd | null | t1_c2kjo62 | t1_c2kcdpn | null | 1427611756 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | cholantesh | null | Have any Canuckian redittors who filled a request gotten their book yet? I submitted a request a month ago (exactly a month ago, August 17th), and I still haven't received it. :( | null | 0 | 1316271132 | False | 0 | c2kjo7e | t3_jjcwd | null | t1_c2kjo7e | t3_jjcwd | null | 1427611756 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | No, it was a simple doubly linked list. It was on Slashdot that I saw it though I think. | null | 0 | 1316271141 | False | 0 | c2kjo8a | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kjo8a | t1_c2kj3ze | null | 1427611757 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | walrod | null | Do not follow the author's recommendation to use using easy_install, use pip instead!
[Some explanations](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3220404/why-use-pip-over-easy-install) | null | 0 | 1316271228 | False | 0 | c2kjoi9 | t3_khv0w | null | t1_c2kjoi9 | t3_khv0w | null | 1427611759 | 8 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | kataire | null | TIL James Gosling is the inventor of Java. | null | 0 | 1316271255 | False | 0 | c2kjol2 | t3_kidbz | null | t1_c2kjol2 | t3_kidbz | null | 1427611760 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | nobodyspecial | null | I've quit developing consumer software due to patents.
Why bother spending the time developing when the likelihood of stepping on multiple patents you didn't even know existed is so high? Hell, you don't even have to step on a patent, just stepping close is enough to trigger a suit.
Fuck the judges who decided that software was patentable. And fuck Congress for failing to explicitly exempt software from being patentable. Both actors have seriously screwed up the landscape just so leaches with lots of money like Nathan Myhrvold and Bill Gates aka Intellectual Ventures aka Lodsys can sue everybody.
Those two are especially loathsome because their fortunes derive from software developed prior to the existence of software patents. | null | 0 | 1316271299 | False | 0 | c2kjopm | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kjopm | t1_c2khl9o | null | 1427611762 | 17 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | babazka | null | Those who are interested in learning programming can and will learn English, as it is a prevalent language in IT world. Those who don't care enough to learn English wouldn't care to understand many programming concepts anyway, even if they are explained in a native language; there seems to be a correlation. I'm saying this as a non-native English speaker. | null | 0 | 1316271326 | False | 0 | c2kjosr | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjosr | t1_c2kjkgk | null | 1427611764 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | shoeOnHeadPls | null | I saw a TV program a few years ago called [Dragons' Den](http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/entrepreneurs/laurabooth.shtml) where inventors pitched their ideas to investors. There's one product I remember quite well: A [high-heeled wellington boot](http://www.wedgewelly.co.uk/). It was proposed to market them to young women attending music festivals.
Anyway, the inventors told the investors that a major high street retailer had placed a modest order for the boots and was selling them on a trial basis.
The investors thought if the high street retailer found the product sold well, they would manufacture their own, under their own brand, to avoid paying the inventors.
The inventors reported that they had IP protection - I believe a 'registered design' - and they had successfully stopped another retailer doing exactly that.
Now, I've heard a whole lot on websites like Slashdot about how there are problems with the American IP system, and for sure there are problems that should be fixed, but I can see the rationale behind some forms of IP protection, and there seem to be cases where the current system works OK. | null | 0 | 1316271509 | False | 0 | c2kjpda | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kjpda | t1_c2ki5xi | null | 1427611770 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316271537 | False | 0 | c2kjpgo | t3_khqu6 | null | t1_c2kjpgo | t1_c2kck4r | null | 1427611773 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rmxz | null | Your startup may offer better job security/stability than larger firms. Consider how many people got laid off each year from large companies. Even if a startup does go under, it's likely that the people in the startup will simply start a new one that you can join.
| null | 0 | 1316271541 | False | 0 | c2kjph9 | t3_khx0u | null | t1_c2kjph9 | t3_khx0u | null | 1427611773 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | babazka | null | [En-UK](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KB_United_Kingdom.svg) seems to have accented keys and £ and €, which I'd rather not see in source code. So, [En-US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KB_United_States-NoAltGr.svg). | null | 0 | 1316271676 | False | 0 | c2kjpx8 | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjpx8 | t1_c2kjnnt | null | 1427611789 | -7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | cdsmith | null | > I'm basically saying that for any function problem ("Find x such that..."), there's a corresponding decision problem ("Is it the case that...?") that can be used to solve it in polynomial time (possibly using multiple calls to the decision problem solver) iff the function problem can be solved in polynomial time -- is this correct?
I'd say no without some more restrictions on the relationship between the function and the decision problem. One direction is easy: if the function can be computed in polynomial time, then of course you can answer questions like "is f(x) equal to y?" or "is f(x) less than y?" in polynomial time, so long as the comparison operator is polynomial.
In the other direction, I think you're right, for example, if your function has the integers as a codomain and the decision problem is of the form "is f(x) less than y?", because you could use a binary search. But if the decision problem involves equality, then there's potentially an exponential blowup in searching the codomain for a point at which the answer is true. So you'd have to be more specific about the way your decision problem relates to the function. | null | 0 | 1316271682 | False | 0 | c2kjpy1 | t3_kgfhb | null | t1_c2kjpy1 | t1_c2kj9bb | null | 1427611789 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316271850 | False | 0 | c2kjqfp | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjqfp | t3_ki83r | null | 1427611785 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | 0xABADC0DA | null | And yet the examples are always simple generic things like sort, containers, etc. These are the things where if you implement push(), pop(), remove() in any other language you would just mark it as implementing a container interface anyway -- that's why you wrote those methods in the first place. So it buys you nothing.
Suppose you add a 'makeinstanceof' operator to Java, something like "anobject += Comparable" would add the Comparable interface to the object. This is essentially what Google Go is doing (or to be exactly like Google Go, "anobject.class += Comparable". That doesn't seem very useful to me, probably why nobody has suggested it for Java or even C# (which has the kitchen sink); it's so rare to encounter a class that's not designed to implement an interface that actually does so correctly.
If you look at the Google Go standard library for instance, it's not doing anything with implicit interfaces that isn't done in other languages with explicit ones. It saves a bit of typing "implements X" but it also causes tons of problems (like os.Error being so clumsy it's worthless for instance).
EDIT: Readers you do know that in Google Go you can't use an interface or a struct in place of another struct right? And that the vast majority of methods on the standard library take structs, making them outside of any structural typing? ie in the response below you can't replace type Y with type X unless type Y is an interface. | null | 0 | 1316271856 | True | 0 | c2kjqg3 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjqg3 | t1_c2kjjwa | null | 1427611785 | -6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | If you don't understand regular expressions I suppose. | null | 0 | 1316271866 | False | 0 | c2kjqh1 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjqh1 | t1_c2kjc91 | null | 1427611786 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | babazka | null | I'm totally creating my own dialect of Lisp which will explicitly forbid using A..Z 0..9 in atoms. This will make Lisp even more *enlightening* language. | null | 0 | 1316271916 | False | 0 | c2kjqm5 | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjqm5 | t1_c2kjil0 | null | 1427611787 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | lolomfgkthxbai | null | Let me guess: I can use SQL to avoid lolQL? :P | null | 0 | 1316271918 | False | 0 | c2kjqmg | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjqmg | t1_c2kjlgz | null | 1427611788 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | AlyoshaV | null | >Those who are interested in learning programming can and will learn English
Fuck off. | null | 0 | 1316272051 | False | 0 | c2kjr14 | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjr14 | t1_c2kjosr | null | 1427611793 | -23 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | szaero | null | The problem is that absence of documentation implies that it hasn't been written or considered yet. If there's nothing else to say, simply reiterating the information inferred by the type signature is a useful way to notify the reader that there is nothing unexpected here. | null | 0 | 1316272129 | False | 0 | c2kjra7 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjra7 | t1_c2kjgqa | null | 1427611806 | -1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | christophski | null | I have never actually seen a UK keyboard with those accents on (I'm from England), but they are accessible using ALT codes or compose key on any keyboard.
edit: I don't see why you are being downvoted, yo are just saying what you saw on a diagram. | null | 0 | 1316272170 | True | 0 | c2kjrev | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjrev | t1_c2kjpx8 | null | 1427611798 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | elperroborrachotoo | null | requires google sign in?! | null | 0 | 1316272199 | False | 0 | c2kjrin | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjrin | t3_kikut | null | 1427611798 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | AlyoshaV | null | [I like what happens if you use ܫ as an identifier](http://i.imgur.com/MDVpl.png) | null | 0 | 1316272269 | False | 0 | c2kjrqp | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjrqp | t1_c2kjdwq | null | 1427611802 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | cyrex | null | Now he gets it!! | null | 0 | 1316272367 | False | 0 | c2kjs2m | t3_khtwb | null | t1_c2kjs2m | t1_c2kgmrq | null | 1427611806 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | crusoe | null | Traits are even better...
That way you can provide some default behavior. | null | 0 | 1316272407 | False | 0 | c2kjs7i | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjs7i | t1_c2kjhyy | null | 1427611808 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | babazka | null | From your highly eloquent and expressive remark I deduce that you already are quite proficient in English, and therefore your retort is meaningless. Would you rather program in [1C:Enterprise](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%D0%A1_%D0%AF%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F)? | null | 0 | 1316272435 | False | 0 | c2kjsbd | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjsbd | t1_c2kjr14 | null | 1427611810 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | michaelfeathers | null | I don't give any context in the blog, really, so here it goes. I've been mining Ruby source code repositories looking for patterns of change in source across time. The code was geared toward that. The method names, as I pointed out are fully-qualified names so they have the full class and module path.
So, no, I'm not trying to do anything spooky at runtime. :-) | null | 0 | 1316272455 | False | 0 | c2kjseg | t3_khnlm | null | t1_c2kjseg | t1_c2kgqjp | null | 1427611821 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | BlatantFootFetishist | null | The same applies if there *is* a documentation string. Perhaps the string was machine-generated, or perhaps it is inaccurate and needs updating. The presence of a documentation string doesn't tell you anything.
The best way to signify that a method doesn't need documentation is not to document it. Redundant documentation simply reduces readability and makes maintainability harder. The following is, unfortunately, all too common in C# code:
/// <summary>
/// Parses a token.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="token">The token to parse.</param>
public void ParseTaken(string token)
{
...
}
Documenting every member also makes it harder to see which members *do* need documentation. Everything becomes a flood of green, and you end up simply ignoring comments, because they're everywhere. | null | 0 | 1316272626 | False | 0 | c2kjsyc | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjsyc | t1_c2kjra7 | null | 1427611820 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | psandler | null | If they can do everything they claim, the future is very bright for the MS platform and MS developers IMHO. | null | 0 | 1316272847 | False | 0 | c2kjtp7 | t3_kip3s | null | t1_c2kjtp7 | t3_kip3s | null | 1427611829 | 16 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | TacticalJoke | null | Some valid points. I don't see why you're getting downvoted for them. | null | 0 | 1316272871 | False | 0 | c2kjtrn | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjtrn | t1_c2kj8dr | null | 1427611830 | -1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | In b4 the unicode rages. | null | 0 | 1316272936 | False | 0 | c2kjtyv | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjtyv | t3_kicbo | null | 1427611833 | -6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | dnew | null | http://readable.tastefulwords.com/
Now they can. | null | 0 | 1316272944 | False | 0 | c2kjtzp | t3_khryi | null | t1_c2kjtzp | t1_c2khr7s | null | 1427611833 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | learc83 | null | Under the new system he'd have to fabricate prior art that came before your prior art, and was in the last year--the grace period would then cover him. However prior art has to be public knowledge. I'd imagine it's a good deal harder to fake that something was public knowledge in the past.
That was actually the problem with first to invent, and why most of the world is already on first to file. It's very hard to prove which person invented something first if neither one published their invention.
You're right, as well, the chance that the examiner won't find prior art is HUGE.
There are estimates that 30% of patents overlap with other patents. So if they aren't finding prior art that exists in the patent system itself, what's the chance they find your software (assuming the examiners even know what to look for--they aren't computer scientists after all). | null | 0 | 1316272968 | False | 0 | c2kju2k | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kju2k | t1_c2kixlm | null | 1427611834 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | mmhrar | null | Ahh I see, that makes a lot more sense. Didn't mean to harp on the non specifics of the post :P
It's cool that you could count on the fact that all methods are part of an implicit object but why not just validate the methods before adding them to the group?
Like you said:
> You shouldn't have to get halfway through your execution to discover that something is wrong.
You then correct the error in a fetching function. It seems like it would be better to do your error handling before you even store the method, this way if you run into something totally unexpected you can throw it out, log it or even store it somewhere else w/ a description of the problem.
Basically, don't bother even putting bad data in, try to correct and if you can't drop it, instead of holding potentially bad data and depending on fixing it inside the program :)
**EDIT**
After re-reading your post, I think you might actually already be validating before putting the method into your groups, and that method isn't necessarily a fetching function. If so sorry, my point is redundant. | null | 0 | 1316273015 | True | 0 | c2kju7y | t3_khnlm | null | t1_c2kju7y | t1_c2kjseg | null | 1427611834 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | TacticalJoke | null | Yep. And, if you're gonna document a method (or class, or whatever), it should be documented when it's written/updated, not at some arbitrary point in the future. The lack of documentation for a method is a claim from the writer of the method that it doesn't need documentation. | null | 0 | 1316273228 | False | 0 | c2kjuwg | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjuwg | t1_c2kjsyc | null | 1427611851 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | ORM _is_ an anti-pattern. What people get wrong is giving up relational algebra, when the right answer is giving up objects. | null | 0 | 1316273331 | False | 0 | c2kjv91 | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjv91 | t3_ki83r | null | 1427611849 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | lkbm | null | Reddit requires a Reddit sign in to post. Google requires a Google login. Why the interobang? | null | 0 | 1316273348 | False | 0 | c2kjvap | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjvap | t1_c2kjrin | null | 1427611849 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | rjberry | null | The bit about ORMs generally not allowing you to choose which columns to load is interesting actually if you know anything about optimizing SQL databases.
For indexes to operate most efficiently they should contain all of the columns you're querying for. This is called a 'covered' query, because all of the fields you're querying for can be loaded directly from the index, meaning the DB engine doesn't have to touch the table. If the index doesn't contain all of the values then you can still look up where the rows are in the table through the index, but you then have to still load them out of memory, which is essentially random IO (as they're unlikely to be located in the same physical space). With smallish data sets often it's as quick to just scan the table and not use the index at all if you have to do this!
As the efficiency and speed of SQL databases relies highly on proper indexing this can be a problem with ORMs that don't allow you to do proper querying. (The answer is to use a better ORM.) | null | 0 | 1316273423 | False | 0 | c2kjvjw | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjvjw | t3_ki83r | null | 1427611853 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | you$heretic[how][dare] <- you | null | 0 | 1316273445 | False | 0 | c2kjvmb | t3_khx5g | null | t1_c2kjvmb | t1_c2kjb5e | null | 1427611853 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | moreyes | null | You don't need to explicitly use inheritance or implement Go interfaces. If a struct has all the methods defined in an interface, it is "implicitly" considered an implementer of the interface. That's the biggest novelty in Go, afaik (and maybe Go borrowed it from some obscure language, but I'm no language design expert to say). | null | 0 | 1316273464 | False | 0 | c2kjvp8 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjvp8 | t1_c2kjjs6 | null | 1427611854 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | birdiedude | null | It is a Saturday. Some of us use .Net for our day jobs, but don't necessarily use it on our home computers. | null | 0 | 1316273465 | False | 0 | c2kjvpf | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjvpf | t1_c2kjdee | null | 1427611854 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | metadave | null | Don Syme is my hero. The guy is amazing.
| null | 0 | 1316273570 | False | 0 | c2kjw1p | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjw1p | t3_kii9z | null | 1427611858 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | lkbm | null | Vim: /\\<i\\>
Standard regex: \\bi\\b | null | 0 | 1316273609 | False | 0 | c2kjw6r | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjw6r | t1_c2kjc91 | null | 1427611860 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | In "breaking the abstraction" I think he means the abstraction of working in terms of objects. | null | 0 | 1316273855 | False | 0 | c2kjx01 | t3_ki83r | null | t1_c2kjx01 | t1_c2khuhq | null | 1427611944 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | The comment on `Swap` isn't redundant because it tells you a crucial piece of information that's not evident from the name or the signature---what it is that's being swapped. It's a decent guess that it's elements at indices `i` and `j`, but considering that all that's here is an abstract interface, having it laid out in text is useful. It's also extremely unlikely that the meaning of `Swap` will change in a way that renders the comment obsolete, so there's really no downside to having it. | null | 0 | 1316274118 | True | 0 | c2kjxtc | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjxtc | t1_c2kj8dr | null | 1427611956 | 6 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ColdMountain | null | Below the video, you can download it in other formats. But if you need to do that, you probably can't do any of what's being shown on your present computer. | null | 0 | 1316274258 | False | 0 | c2kjyaw | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjyaw | t1_c2kjkpx | null | 1427611962 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | You know, I think we can generalize this to cover everything on StackOverflow:
> Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I'll use a computer.” Now they have two problems. | null | 0 | 1316274341 | False | 0 | c2kjylz | t3_ki52y | null | t1_c2kjylz | t1_c2kj4hy | null | 1427611966 | 4 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | asteroidB612 | null | It might scale but not highly | null | 0 | 1316274358 | False | 0 | c2kjynx | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjynx | t1_c2kjfiu | null | 1427611967 | 3 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | 4ad | null | Go back to your Java closet.
| null | 0 | 1316274391 | False | 0 | c2kjyrz | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjyrz | t1_c2kjd34 | null | 1427611967 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | [deleted] | null | 0 | 1316274474 | False | 0 | c2kjz2i | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjz2i | t1_c2kjg1w | null | 1427611972 | 0 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Bavaron | null | Well, it's *locked* to the .NET framework, that's a pretty big deal isn't it? You want to code something deliberately locked to a particular platform these days people should be asking those questions before they start and understand the ramifications of it. It should be a disclaimer in every message advocating it like in smoking ads.
I'd hope people are patient enough to keep pointing out the *obvious flaw* to others who seem especially oblivious to it. In fact calling people "junior programmers" who are just helping others out seems rather indicative of shilling. | null | 0 | 1316274519 | False | 0 | c2kjz88 | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjz88 | t1_c2kjdee | null | 1427611983 | -11 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | asteroidB612 | null | Yes, Common Lisp is what i had in mind - specifically the venerable SBCL - woot woot! | null | 0 | 1316274537 | False | 0 | c2kjzaa | t3_kicbo | null | t1_c2kjzaa | t1_c2kjil0 | null | 1427611975 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | Sadly, MS has the reputation of making promises that can never come true. | null | 0 | 1316274573 | False | 0 | c2kjzet | t3_kip3s | null | t1_c2kjzet | t1_c2kjtp7 | null | 1427611977 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | [deleted] | null | it's more that, people are discouraged from doing so. c++ templates allow this and it's exactly what stl is about with a broader scope than go | null | 0 | 1316274623 | False | 0 | c2kjzl2 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjzl2 | t1_c2kj75k | null | 1427611978 | 15 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | gthank | null | I don't know that you could even call them obscure. Some of them are certainly more popular than Go. OCaml, Haskell, etc. have had structural typing for a long time. Here's a [fairly good discussion of structural typeing](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NominativeAndStructuralTyping). | null | 0 | 1316274650 | False | 0 | c2kjzo6 | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjzo6 | t1_c2kjvp8 | null | 1427611980 | 5 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | gasche | null | It may seem incredible to you, but we may be interested in a technology *we don't use*. I don't use . NET, I don't have Silverlight installed on my computer, and yet I would be interesting in reading about the innovations in F#, because I'm interested in language design and respect the work of the F# team.
Besides, I don't like the tone of your comment. Calling people "junior programmers" and saying they "suck. Period." doesn't improve "the quality of this subreddit". I don't mind the strong language ("fucking rich"), but I don't like insults. | null | 0 | 1316274658 | False | 0 | c2kjzpb | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjzpb | t1_c2kjdee | null | 1427611980 | 35 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Concise_Pirate | null | Apparently the community disagrees that you own proggit or set its gatekeeping rules. | null | 0 | 1316274724 | False | 0 | c2kjzxx | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kjzxx | t1_c2kjemu | null | 1427611991 | 7 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | DrMonkeyLove | null | I don't even necessarily like them for loops that much. Sometimes it is useful for the index to name what it is indexing (e.g. iAntelopes) especially if you have a number of arrays you're working with. If you're just working with a numerical vector or matrix, then i and j are fine (unless you're also dealing with complex numbers, then maybe i and j are bad ideas, especially if you're coding in MatLab). Of course, ideally you'd work in a language that never lets you index something with the wrong type, then it's really much more of a non-issue. | null | 0 | 1316274725 | False | 0 | c2kjzxy | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjzxy | t1_c2kjdg3 | null | 1427611991 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | danharaj | null | In some ways C++ templates are too powerful, and in other ways too abstruse. They're the Turing tarpit of polymorphism. | null | 0 | 1316274731 | False | 0 | c2kjzyw | t3_kikut | null | t1_c2kjzyw | t1_c2kjzl2 | null | 1427611984 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | ChiperSoft | null | There are certainly cases where patent laws protect the concerns of individuals who create a product, but that doesn't mean that it created a job. It just made sure the creator wasn't screwed over by a corporation.
Innovation and design, new ideas; that's what creates jobs. Patents just make sure people get their money, or in far more cases, that _people_ don't get any money at all. The vast majority of US patents are owned by corporate entities and are used to protect corporate interests. | null | 0 | 1316274809 | False | 0 | c2kk08p | t3_khvyw | null | t1_c2kk08p | t1_c2kjpda | null | 1427611987 | 2 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Concise_Pirate | null | Thanks.
Even people who *don't use* a given platform may learn interesting ideas from seeing how programming is done there.
And in rare cases they might even use such info to decide whether to switch platforms.
Furthermore, a very large percentage of readers here probably *do* develop on .NET some or all of the time. That would make an interesting survey question. | null | 0 | 1316274810 | False | 0 | c2kk08s | t3_kii9z | null | t1_c2kk08s | t1_c2kjdee | null | 1427611987 | 10 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | __j_random_hacker | null | Thanks. I was trying to get around that exponential blowup by saying
> more generally, "Find x such that...", where x belongs to a set X *whose size is bounded by a polynomial in the problem size*, can be turned into a series of calls that test each element in X.
I thought that hedge was alright as I couldn't think of any problems where the codomain was exponential in the problem size off the top of my head, but I see now that's clearly wrong. In fact *multiplication* ("Find x such that x = y * z") is such a problem, if we measure the input in bits and can use only an equality test as the decision problem! :-/ | null | 0 | 1316274958 | False | 0 | c2kk0pf | t3_kgfhb | null | t1_c2kk0pf | t1_c2kjpy1 | null | 1427611994 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
True | Onlinealias | null | You have never actually administered or deployed one, have you? If you had, you wouldn't say anything of the sort. How the lists are gathered, what users are restricted to, and how packets are inspected is clear to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with them. | null | 0 | 1316275072 | False | 0 | c2kk14j | t3_khtwb | null | t1_c2kk14j | t1_c2kjfb8 | null | 1427611999 | 1 | t5_2fwo | null | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
Filtered Reddit Uplifting News
The query retrieves specific news articles by their link IDs, providing a basic overview of those particular entries without deeper analysis or insights.
Recent Programming Comments
Returns a limited set of programming records from 2020 to 2023, providing basic filtering with minimal analytical value.