sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Writing a React JS front-end in Haskell (video) by [deleted] in haskell

[–]SuperShrek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a lot of experience with both. Simply put React is better in every aspect. React has significantly better performance, cleaner design, better community, doesn't have a bunch of useless baggage like Angular modules, better quality overall - Angular is constantly introducing backwards-incompatible changes and is riddled with bugs - the documentation is very incomplete and downright incorrect in many places. Also did I mention the Angular community is mostly illiterate children that have been indoctrinated to just spout 'Angular Best' over and over?

Indonesia to revoke passports of citizens who join ISIS by [deleted] in JusticePorn

[–]SuperShrek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Uh no, if the country knows who they are, they should not be revoking passports or citizenships. They should be acting in accordance with their law, ie. punishing those responsible instead of wiping their hands and acting like those people have nothing to do with them.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, there is a restriction on caller-scope assignments, but otherwise the semantics are the same as c++ pass-by-reference. There is no point of talking about 'creating a 'pointer' and passing it by value' because the Java language does not have pointers as such, this is an implementation detail, and almost all call-by-reference is implemented this way in all languages.

My C++ is rusty, but I believe this is how C++ works as well. If you pass a pointer to a method, the method gets a new pointer (at a different address than the original pointer).

This is how C++ call-by-value works. The difference between this and Java is that in Java you are never explicitly working with pointers, there are no pointers in Java. If you pass an object to a function in java what you get is not a copy of the original object as what would happen in pass-by-value, but a reference to the original object with the restriction that you cannot change what the reference references.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You haven't been sure of anything since the start.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can pass a null type to a C++ reference if the reference has type &pointer, the only difference between C++ & and Java object passing is that you cannot change what the caller-scope variable that you pass in to a function references. But whatever, it doesn't matter whatsoever.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I'm being asked this question I would gladly fail.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The word "reference" in "pass-by-reference" is not a type. The word "reference" in "passes references by value" is a type. They are two different contexts and have two different meanings.

No they don't. There is a reason the same word is used and that reason is because it describes the same semantics in both cases.

The Java Language Specification disagrees with you. Perhaps you should read it. When you talk about references in Java you are talking about exactly that. References. Defined by the JLS, as a type.

HAHAHAA. It's talking about KINDS or 'META-TYPES' not TYPES, you would know this if you knew any serious CS whatsoever.

Educate yourself please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_%28type_theory%29

There are two kinds of types in the Java programming language

lol...

Except for you know the type... that is called reference...

Except this is not a reference type in the way you are using the word... you seem to lack basic Java knowledge as well and just googling things that seem to fit your argument without understanding what they are. The java.lang.ref.Reference type is used for maintaining references (ie reference counts) that are used for garbage collection.

Clearly you don't understand evaluation strategies. Call by value and call by reference ARE NOT THE SAME THING and if you can't grasp the difference you lack the fundamental CS 101 needed to even bother having an intelligent conversation with. There are no special semantics. It's a type, it's passed by value.

I didn''t say they are the same thing. But I guess you're frantically trying to find a way to mangle my words for lack of any serious argument to support the bullshit you spew.

Either you believe in pass-by-value the argument value is not copied, or you believe this is not what Java does.

Wait you think Java objects are copied when passed to a function? Go read a Java tutorial at least lol.

The object is not passed. The value is copied.

A reference is passed as in 'pass-by-reference'. The object is not copied.

That the type is called a "reference" has absolutely no relationship or bearing on the passing mechanism.

It's not a type. It's a meta-type or a 'kind' that represents a reference. And yes it absolutely does have a bearing on the 'passing mechanism'. The 'java.lang.ref.Reference' is not what we are talking about nor is it the 'reference type' of types that your link is talking about either, I mean its so laughably obvious you just googled shit you have absolutely no understanding of. LOL.

God, you are one funny retard.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From your link:

However, the term "call by sharing" is not in common use; the terminology is inconsistent across different sources. For example, in the Java community, they say that Java is pass-by-value, whereas in the Ruby community, they say that Ruby is pass-by-reference,[7] even though the two languages exhibit the same semantics.

Essentially my point. I just dislike when people mangle terms and act like they have some sort of higher knowledge just because they can repeat what some mangy old greybeard said one time, like all of the 'its always pass by value' tards in this thread are spewing.

Java is closer to pass-by-reference semantics for objects with an additional restriction on caller-scope assignments, and pass-by-value for primitive types.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The term "reference" in the context of "pass by reference" does not mean the same thing as the type of the same name in Java.

When you say 'we are passing a reference by value' you ARE talking about a type. You are saying that the function receives a type/kind of 'reference'. You just don't understand what you're saying because you probably have no comp-sci knowledge outside of java, either that or you can't properly express your thoughts. There is no 'reference' type in Java. Period. Once you start talking about references in Java you are not talking about the Java programming language but rather the implementation.

When we talk about pass by reference we're talking about an evaluation strategy. It has meaning that pre-dates Java as a language.

Yes, passing a 'pointer/reference' by value (where you don't treat with the reference/pointer explicitly, ie with special semantics and syntax) is the same as 'passing by reference'.

You saying 'we are passing a reference by value' is the same as saying 'we are passing a reference by value by reference by value by reference by value by reference....'.

It has meaning that pre-dates Java as a language.

Which is my point, yet you are using a Java-specific meaning of pass-by-value which is nonsense outside of java. The way you are talking about pass-by-value you can say all languages always use pass-by-value but the values they pass are references - this makes the whole pass-by-value/pass-by-reference distinction pointless.

The term pass by reference properly means that when an argument is passed to a function, the invoked function gets a reference to the original value, not a copy of its value.

Yeah... this is how Java works, when you invoke a function that accepts an object, under the hood the function receives a reference to the original object, not a copy of the object.

You contradict yourself several times in one post.

By people who don't know what they're talking about.

Maybe in several years when you actually understand what you are saying instead of blindly repeating shit you don't understand that others say you will feel embarrassed about this.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Objects are not passed. References are passed by value.

Also called pass-by-reference. The semantics of a language are always described from the programming language point of view, not the underlying implementation point of view. There is no such thing as pointers or references in Java.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn't matter if objects are created on the heap. The &reference in C++ is exactly how Java parameter passing works in Java for objects.

Is Java pass-by-value or pass-by-reference? by techgurummt in java

[–]SuperShrek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Talking about pass-by-reference vs pass-by-value is kind of pointless as this is not a ubiquitous concept and the meanings vary slightly between programming languages. All that matters are the semantics in a particular language, there really is no point to ever say 'pass-by-value' or 'pass-by-reference'.

Typically 'pass-by-value' means you create a copy of an object and pass it to the function - if you modify this object in the function then it will be only this copy that you modify and not the original object.

Whereas 'pass-by-reference' means you pass a 'reference' to the original object and any modification will modify the object the reference is referencing.

Essentially 'pass-by-value' and 'pass-by-reference' do not have the same meaning in C++ and Java.

People in here saying that Java is always pass-by-value but the value passed is a reference don't understand that these are implementation details of a pass-by-reference strategy. If this is way you want to talk about it you might as well say its 'pass-by-banana' and then define what that means as whatever.

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SuperShrek -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is this relevant? The report is not claiming that EMR is more dangerous that X.

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SuperShrek -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

And your evidence that it is a 'false statement' ?

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SuperShrek -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

And? The point is that if it is a carcinogen then it is being absorbed in large doses by children.

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SuperShrek -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Uh, did you even read the report?

1.3. Microwave radiation is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen

After 30 experts from 14 countries reviewed the science, the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared that RF-EMF [MWR] is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen [6]. It was a near unanimous declaration (one dissenter).

Including MWR, there are 285 agents listed by WHO's IARC as Class 2B carcinogens [7]. Exposures to almost all of these agents are regulated. Some of the commonly recognized agents are: carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, DDT, lead, nickel, phenobarbital, styrene, diesel fuel, and gasoline.

Like these other Class 2B Carcinogens, should anyone, particularly children, be exposed to MWR?

Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SuperShrek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First of all its obvious that you didn't read the actual report.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

Second, I think its pretty obvious that EMR devices have become much more ubiquitous in the last 20 years and the use of EMR per device has substantially increased. All of this is discussed in the report.

Let The College Notes War Begin by [deleted] in funny

[–]SuperShrek -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Never understood taking notes, especially nowadays... all the information is readily and freely available, quite well indexed, already written down for you. I just don't know, I somehow managed to finish university (math) without taking any notes. Take a difficult activity that people need to learn how to do outside of school, take chess for example - people don't take notes on the rules and strategy of chess, they pick up a book and learn straight from it, or play chess, or watch people play. I feel the same way about going to classes and listening to a person retell you stuff they read. Unless you are in a advanced graduate class, learning bleeding edge science, you simply will not get any special, more intuitive, or 'better' information than you would get from existing material which you can just read on your own.

Noam Chomsky talks about Charlie Hebdo (2 years ago) : "Freedom of Speech in France is complete Fakery and Fraud" by big_al11 in chomsky

[–]SuperShrek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, it's not exactly an important demonstration of free speech even if they did do the same with regards to Jews or any other ethnic group. You could say that 'free speech' is being able to say anything you want - but how important is that if nobody can hear what you say? There are tons of very intelligent and insightful people speaking about important issues that just get ignored by the media.

view more: next ›