Haha, nice observation. But not really. The only facet of object orientation is processes communicating with message-passing semantics. Primitive types are not objects, and processes are not instances of a class for example.
But you can get "polymorphism" by spawning different processes that all respond to the same messages. So in that sense the process is the "instance", and the process function is the "class".
Why not? It seems reasonable to me that as the number of people working on some piece of code grows the average skill will settle around "not an expert", whatever that means.
I'd tend to expect the same (and agree that "not an expert" is vague), but I'm actually a bit more curious about the proposal that it's a normal distribution. Why would it be? If I had to guess, I might go for something downward-skewed, or maybe even some kind of typically bimodal thing.
No, they are not really. Schengen is mostly about border controls. For example, Switzerland is in Schengen but they are not part of the EU customs zone, so goods cannot be freely moved across the border (although there are a lot of bilateral treaties to make this easier).
But the EU has their own version of the Commerce Clause, the Common Market.
In my Emacs I've got 1) eldoc (displaying signature of function at point), 2) function source lookup, 3) function documentation lookup, 4) flycheck (display compiler err/warn on save), 5) auto-completion. Among a few other things like go-guru integration which I haven't used much yet but I can see its use.
All of those features come from editor agnostic golang tools.
Do they do static analysis of code? The problem is that with other languages they all work "sort of". For example, for Elpy:
"the backends can not always identify what kind of symbol is at point. Especially after a few indirections, they have basically no hope of guessing right, so they don’t"
With go guru it just works, always, no matter how deep you drill into the graph (that's what I meant by "first class").
With C# and TypeScript and all LISPs I've worked with, they work hand in hand with the compiler/runtime to provide absolute correctness at all levels. Absolutely first class. (And I agree Elpy does not qualify for that term)
And while we're on the subject: Only Microsoft had the foresight (or hindsight, insight, whatever) to realize this was a general problem and propose a solution which applies to all editors and all languages:
You'd think Google, with their tons of resources could put together a few resources and join a new, future-proof non-NIH standard for Go, but so far they seems to be lagging.
I agree, a common standard would be good. That said, experience taught me to distrust any proposed standard that comes out of Microsoft. Besides, I find that with the programming editor communities, such standards are not that important - as long as a language has the tooling, it'll be integrated, standard or no standard.
This protocol is about reducing the N languages and M editors = N*M client/server implementations with a much better N+M solution, where we don't have to reinvent 200 wheels every time someone makes a new editor or language.
And the protocol is open. Seriously what do you have to lose, besides a shit-ton of redundant work?
Distrust? Distrust exactly what? Are you sure you aren't being your own worst enemy?
See here for a list of fully open source and MS-independent implementations: http://langserver.org/
The issue there is that Python is a dynamic language. Syntactic resolution of what a "thing" is in, in some sense, not supposed to always work -- otherwise it would be a static language!
Being able to recognize what a syntactic entity represents -- type or value or whatever -- has been supported by the editor plugins for static languages for a very long time.
For sure, but then there are mainstream static languages like Java/Scala which still lack that kind of support (e.g. ensime and friends, which work unpredictably, if at all).
Could you explain why any of what you say a 'pro-business' politician should do is pro-business? I think a lot of people would disagree with you on those points.
Okay, sure. The first place is to immediately dispel the idea that Republicans have ever been about being "pro-business" - and the second place will be that Trump specifically is not.
It's simple Tragedy of the Commons at first. Republicans / Republican Presidents are generally pro-greed and pro-riches, not pro-business, and those are different things. What you want in a good business environment is not achieved with Republican policies. This can be seen with the past few presidents - good economic times and growth with Democrat policies, and poor economic times and decline with Republicans.
Specifics.
> A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate
Henry Ford is the good example here of showing why this is pro-business. Give your country a stable, wealthy middle class (pay your auto-workers more, a lot more), and then they will be able to buy your products and your company will thrive. Roads will be built for your cars to drive on, with those taxes!
Wealthy people are important in a capitalistic society, but income inequality and extreme wealth present dangers, not useful things. Income inequality will catch up with the business as the middle class fades and doesn't buy their products.
Want a pro-business environment? Increase corporate taxes to fund schools and education and infrastructure so that more people will grow up healthy and wealthy and wanting to buy things.
> Improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country
Is this really a debate, especially here? Most of the smart people in the world who can create wealth and businesses do NOT live in the USA. If they wanted to live here, or did live here, that would be great.
> Address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face
The climate is changing, and it's going to kill a lot of people that could have been buying your products. It's going to displace hundreds of millions of families and settlements. Food production and distribution is going to be wildly affected. Basic things that should be stable in a business environment will not be stable. Climate change is the biggest RISK for corporate profits in the world (though right now you could also see it as an opportunity - if you recognize that it needs to be addressed).
> improve healthcare for everyone in nation
Again is this really a debate? Isn't it obvious that healthy people will be better for business? Do you want your customer base to be dying? Or your employees worried about disease? That's not useful for business.
If you really felt like the possibility of a 'real' discussion was nil, just don't post. taxicabjesus made valid points, and you just condescendingly insult him. For what purpose?
Why? Obviously, given the very basic nature of the question, this person hasn't looked into it at all.
Do you think I should have summarized all of the search results instead of just linking them?
What in fact is so meaningless about responding in this way?
Do you really think the question posed was so insightful and hitherto unanswered that we should all spend time considering it deeply here in this thread?
Honestly I find it extremely insulting that, in every thread about Windows, there are twelve or so people here who come here simply to wonder out loud why nobody uses their favorite non-Windows operating system or to extol it's supremacy (and how could anybody else possibly ever think otherwise??). That's crap.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you want men to sway their hips? You think something like that would help? Or would that be a reasonable thing to ask since it sorta reduces to the structure of the body?
Is that directed towards me? If so, please don't assume I'm acting in bad faith, or am unprepared to to be open to this discussion. I'm just honestly perplexed at what "notion that men are psychologically torturing women just by enacting common male body movement patterns in the workplace" could be referring to.
> Why bother when we know what the response is going to be?
Perhaps I should have refrained from getting out in front of a possible reply, but I'm really interested in what that statement is referring to, and beyond what I speculated, I'm completely clueless as to what it could be, and I would rather be aware of a way behavior of mine might negatively impact others. If it is what I speculated, I'm prepared to have what I consider a substantive discussion on about that topic.
