I'm 52. There was plenty of earlier stuff, but the oldest code I can still find online is from an article I wrote in 1992 on how to write assembly language routines to extend the QBasic interpreter.
How can this guy get all the way through this article without mentioning that not only is Nathan Myhrvold "former CTO of Microsoft", but that as owner of Intellectual Ventures, the most powerful non- practising patent troll in existence, he is perhaps the world's biggest example of what is wrong with the patent system and why ideas, innovative or not, are almost impossible to turn into reality without the threat of litigation.
The fact that he would avoid mentioning this shows that anything else said in this piece can be assumed to be utter bullshit and spin.
You know, I was really trying hard to avoid the debate on patents since it wasn't very related to what I was trying to say. That apparently backfired. :)
I'm pretty familiar with the issues, both on the closed (often corporate) and open (often research, open source) sides -- it just wasn't a place I wanted to go.
I also don't really have an agenda, either with Nathan or anyone else -- you can find me online, I'm pretty much an open book.
The only thing I really do care about here? Building stuff, for- or non-profit, that adds value to humanity.
The list of languages covered made me look at the date on the article. I was almost certain it would be pre-y2k.
Sounds like a blinkered enterprise Java-centric worldview to me. To have ASP as the only scripting environment listed is just plain crazy in 2012. If you're going to include scripting at all, where are Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP, Javascript? If you want to talk about the productivity boost from high-level languages, you have to include these.
The last paragraph of the article is devoted to explaining why that is.
PHP was still a bit surprising, but the answer might be in the list there, too. Any list that ranks classic ASP, COBOL, and C# has to be working with source data that represents a very particular and non-representative corner of the software industry. Of course with a chance to look at that data costing €5,200 we can probably only speculate. . .
1) to be language agnostic. Following ES5's syntax directions is fine for ES5 focused development, possibly not for others.
2) to be final - i.e. there is no version number. If you want to extend or build something else, I am fairly certain Douglas would prefer that you call it something else. See http://inkdroid.org/journal/2012/04/30/lessons-of-json/ at 5:30 in the video.
Don't take these points as criticisms, I too would like to be able to use single quotes and trailing commas and everything else here. I think though that in order to work with JSON as a static spec, an alternative approach could be to have your project be a layer like HAML, SASS or CoffeeScript. Each of those tools compiles or transforms to conforming input for their target specs rather than replacing them.
JSON5 is also meant to be language-agnostic. It derives its syntax from ES5 in the same way that JSON derived its syntax from ES3.
I'm aware that JSON is final — it's my hope that a new format that's easier to write (whether this or something else) picks up steam — but thanks for the feedback on the name! I consciously used a different file extension (.json5) to avoid conflicts; hopefully that's a good start.
I already use (and love) CoffeeScript, but my motivation for building this was to have tools use it natively, so that sibling files in a different format wouldn't have to be maintained alongside the needed JSON.
That's a nice graph, but it assumes that the Congress would have just gone along with surpluses and done what they never do -- stopped increasing spending. Both parties are to blame and sites that claim that the Republicans or Democrats are to blame for the national debt are just exposing their biases. We are where we are because politicians can't help themselves and they can't stop spending.
I dropped out of my Electronics Engineering Technology polytech course in 1982 after working part time for a couple of years with electronics and microcomputers and finding I was learning more valuable things at work than at school. At the time I thought I'd go back and finish, but I just kept on going, learning as I went along. Now with over 30 years on my resume, whether I have a degree is a question I don't often get, but if anyone is hung up on it, it's a good filter.
I have to say it's jarring to hear Ron Paul referring to "6000 years of human history" as though that is the totality of human history. While I still support him fully because everything he has to say wrt government and foreign policy is sound and principled, it's really difficult for me to reconcile this one thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - In this video he claims he does not "accept the theory of evolution as a theory". While he doesn't come straight out and use the tired "just a theory" attack, it sure sounds like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiR_U8vhIo - A reading from his book expounds on his answer to that question. He seems to think the question of evolution is "silly" and irrelevant to his campaign. He also attacks public schools and evolution with rather weak and banal rhetoric.
Ron Paul lacks the perspective to be commander-in-chief of this country.
No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe.
This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all.
For Paul to claim that someone could hold a "scientific opinion as gospel" shows that he has either forgotten his scientific education that he no doubt received during his Ph.D. candidacy, or that his meaning was lost in his sweeping rhetoric. In this age of climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation the most powerful country in the world needs a Commander-in-Chief that demonstrates the ability to understand and interpret scientific advances. Paul has not shown this ability.
He's an MD not a PhD, as for showing ability to take science into account, I'd say that the politicization of science has been extremely detrimental to the publics trust in it. I've done a lot of research into the philosophy and history of science, and basing policy on "cutting edge" research seems to be wrought with disaster. In general scientists and engineers are extremely optimistic in the systems we can design, control, and understand. In government, we need a conservative approach that waits for science to be firmly established before acting, though a case be made against it, and in general it's better to directly convince the public to do something than use the threat of violence. Of course counter examples do exist (leaded gasoline and CFCs).
http://www.petesqbsite.com/sections/tutorials/zines/qbnews/1...